Re: test of new Location header usage

Joseph R Barge ([email protected])
Wed, 9 Aug 1995 23:15:57 -0400 (EDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: [email protected]: "WHAT'S GOING ON?"
Previous message: Roy Fielding: "Re: a test result"
In reply to: Rob Hartill: "Re: test of new Location header usage"
Next in thread: Joseph R Barge: "Re: test of new Location header usage"

Could someone please take me off of this list. My reason for signing on
has since disappeared so I would greatly appreciate instructions to help
me, or if someone just did it I would be eternally grateful!! Thank You

On Wed, 9 Aug 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:

>
> > Only historical reason : the first spec (CGI 1.0) defined only `Content-type'
> > and `Location'. `Status' was added for CGI 1.1
> >
> > I don't know why you want add a status code, when Location imply a code 302.
>
> Location doesn't necessarily imply "302". "301" is prefectly acceptable,
> and preferably in many cases.
>
>
> rob
>
>

Next message: [email protected]: "WHAT'S GOING ON?"
Previous message: Roy Fielding: "Re: a test result"
In reply to: Rob Hartill: "Re: test of new Location header usage"
Next in thread: Joseph R Barge: "Re: test of new Location header usage"