> Your thoughts on the following would be appreciated: > > First, 202 (Accepted) is defined here: > > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html > > And it specifically says that this is for situations where a resource > could not be created immediated (e.g. where resources are created by > batch processing). SWORD 1.3, meanwhile, appears to use this to > indicate that the resource has not yet /passed through review/ which is > not quite the same thing. Contrast this with the definition of 201 > (Created) in the same document.
My perspective from someone who mainly writes clients... (so based on experience rather than specs) Some server implementations return a 202 if, as you say, the item hasn't gone through workflow, where they only mint an identifier upon workflow completion. However as the spec doesn't say that (201 = expect a final identifier, 202 dont't expect one) not all implementations observe that rule, so my clients can't make any decisions based on that status code. And with the new statement etc, it would seem sensible to drop the use of 202. Cheers, Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d _______________________________________________ Sword-app-techadvisorypanel mailing list Sword-app-techadvisorypanel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sword-app-techadvisorypanel
