At 22:55 -0700 2007-10-03, Erik Hetzner wrote:
"Aron Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.... a status code of 200 would seem to be the only
> appropriate success response from an HTTP HEAD request. Status codes
201 through 203 appear to be inappropriate to HEAD requests, as well.
To be pedantic: the status code is NOT part of the message headers,
True, and thanks for clarifying this - this seems to have been
conflated in several past posts, including my own.
The status code is a component of the HTTP status line, which -
although it is also part of the text-based response to HTTP requests
- is considered a separate part of the HTTP response from the headers.
Adam Taft wrote:
> >A call to HEAD should return _exactly_ the same headers as the same
>call to GET.
True. Responses to HEAD requests should return the same set of
HTTP headers as responses to GET requests, except for the empty
entity body.
As a slight refinement, however, responses to HEAD requests should
not always return the range of status codes appropriate to GET
> requests. ...
Could you point these status codes out to me? I can't figure out which
ones you might mean.
In this discussion, Adam Taft stated his belief that it is
inappropriate to return a 204 status code as part of the response
from a HEAD request:
At 20:22 -0600 2007-10-03, Adam Taft wrote:
You don't need to send 204 because, by definition, HEAD already
means no content.
That status code is entirely appropriate for GET requests.
Aron Roberts Information Services and Technology . 2195 Hearst
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-4876 USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . +1 510-642-5974 . fax 510-643-5385
http://purl.org/net/aron
