To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: PR#1014 (request for Content-Location output header field) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:53:02 EDT."
             <97082016530257@decus.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 21:10:58 -0700
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Message-ID: <9708202112.aa14110@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

>    I'm still not convinced that this isn't a good idea.  Among other
>    things, it's a SHOULD in RFC2068, so I think it's worthy of
>    consideration.  (I'd really like to hear Roy's opinion on this one,
>    too.)

Well, I invented it, so you could say I'm biased.

>    I agree with Dean on the directory-object stuff (i.e., don't set
>    Content-Location for that), but I *do* rather like it for naming
>    specific objects which were negotiated from a general URL (i.e.,
>    language-specific documents).

It shouldn't hurt for anything (it will not be visible in bookmarks
or URL boxes in any case).  The main thing that it would be used by
is remote authoring tools, in theory at least.

....Roy