Why is the HTTP location header only set for POST requests/201 (Created) responses?

问题

Ignoring 3xx responses for a moment, I wonder why the HTTP location header is only used in conjunction with POST requests/201 (Created) responses.

From the RFC 2616 spec:

For 201 (Created) responses, the Location is that of the new resource which was created by the request.

This is a widely supported behavior, but why shouldn't it be used with other HTTP methods? Take the JSON API spec as an example:

It defines a self referencing link for the current resource inside the JSON payload (not uncommon for RESTful APIs). This link is included in every payload. The spec says that you MUST include an HTTP location header, if you create a new document via POST and that the value is the same as the self referencing link in the payload, but this is ONLY needed for POST. Why bother with a custom format for a self referencing link, if you could just use the HTTP location header?

Note: This isn't specific to JSON API. It's the same for HAL, JSON Hyper-Schema or other standards.

Note 2: It isn't even specific to the HTTP location header as it is the same with the HTTP link header. As you can see the JSON API, HAL and JSON Hyper-Schema not only define conventions for self referencing links, but also to express information about related resources or possible actions for a resource. But it seems that they all could just use the HTTP link header. (They could even put the self referencing link into the HTTP link header, if they don't want to use the HTTP location header.)

I don't want to rant, it just seems to be some sort of "reinventing the wheel". It also seems to be very limiting: if you would just use HTTP location/link header, it doesn't matter if you ask for JSON, XML or whatever in your HTTP accept header and you would get useful meta-information about your resource on a HEAD request, which wouldn't contain the links if you would use JSON API, HAL or JSON Hyper-Schema.

回答1:

The semantics of the Location header isn't that of a self-referencing link, but of a link the user-agent should follow in order to complete the request. That makes sense in redirects, and when you create a new resource that will be in a new location you should go to. If your request is already completed, meaning you already have a full representation of the resource you wanted, it doesn't make sense to return a Location.

The Link header may be considered semantically equivalent to an hypertext Link, but it should be used to reference metadata related to the given resource when the media-type is not hypermedia-aware, so it doesn't replace the functionality of a link to related resources in a RESTful API.

The need for a custom link format in the resource representation is inherent to the need to decouple the resource from the underlying implementation and protocol. REST is not coupled to HTTP, and any protocol for which there's a valid URI scheme can be used. If you decided to use the Link header for all links, you're coupling to HTTP.

Let's say you present an FTP link for clients to follow. Where would be the Link in that case?

回答2:

The semantic of the Location header depends on the status code. For 201, it links to the newly created resource, but in 3xx requests it can have multiple (although similiar) meanings. I think that is why it is generally avoided for other usages.

The alternative is the Content-Location header, which always has a consistent meaning. It tells the client the canonical URL the resource it requested. It is purely informative (in contrast to the Location, which is expected to be processed by the client).

So, the Content-Location header seems to closer resemble a self-referencing link. However, the Content-Location also has no defined behavior for PUT and POST. It also seems to be quite rarely used.

This blogs post Location vs Content-Location is a nice comparison. Here is a quote: