The point is that there's no reason to dictate an exact response code. 200 or 204 are both appropriate and clients should be capable of handling either.
Tim Bray wrote: > On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote: > >>> 2. Upon a successful update of the resource the server responds with >>> a status code of 200. >>> >>> Would not a 204 No Content be appropriate as well given that we're not >>> requiring or recommending the update to return a response? >> >> Agreed. > > -1 > > I would be irritated at a server that did this. If there's no bloody > response I can bloody tell there's no bloody response, why does the > server have to tell me again? The existing language "responds with a > status code of 200" is simple and unambiguous and clear and > implementor-friendly; why fuzzify it? -Tim >
