httpstatuses/contents/codes/300.md

---
set: 3
code: 300
title: Multiple Choices
references:
    "Rails HTTP Status Symbol": ":multiple_choices"
---

The target resource has more than one representation, each with its own more
specific identifier, and information about the alternatives is being provided
so that the user (or user agent) can select a preferred representation by
redirecting its request to one or more of those identifiers.

In other words, the server desires that the user agent engage in reactive
negotiation to select the most appropriate representation(s) for its
needs<sup>[1](#ref-1)</sup>.

If the server has a preferred choice, the server SHOULD generate a Location
header field containing a preferred choice's URI reference. The user agent MAY
use the Location field value for automatic redirection.

For request methods other than HEAD, the server SHOULD generate a payload in the
300 response containing a list of representation metadata and URI reference(s)
from which the user or user agent can choose the one most preferred. The user
agent MAY make a selection from that list automatically if it understands the
provided media type. A specific format for automatic selection is not defined by
this specification because HTTP tries to remain orthogonal to the definition of
its payloads. In practice, the representation is provided in some easily parsed
format believed to be acceptable to the user agent, as determined by shared
design or content negotiation, or in some commonly accepted hypertext format.

A 300 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the
method definition or explicit cache controls<sup>[2](#ref-2)</sup>.

Note: The original proposal for the 300 status code defined the URI header field
as providing a list of alternative representations, such that it would be usable
for 200, 300, and 406 responses and be transferred in responses to the HEAD
method. However, lack of deployment and disagreement over syntax led to both URI
and Alternates (a subsequent proposal) being dropped from this specification. It
is possible to communicate the list using a set of Link header
fields<sup>[3](#ref-3)</sup>, each with a relationship of "alternate",
though deployment is a chicken-and-egg problem.

---

* <span id="ref-1"><sup>1</sup> Content Negotiation
[RFC7231 Section 3.4][2]</span>
* <span id="ref-2"><sup>2</sup> Calculating Heuristic Freshness
[RFC7234 Section 4.2.2][3]</span>
* <span id="ref-3"><sup>3</sup> Web Linking [RFC5988][4]</span>
* Source: [RFC7231 Section 6.4.1][1]

[1]: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.1>
[2]: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-3.4>
[3]: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.2.2>
[4]: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988>