W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: Section 14.36 Range, and PUTs

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 16:39:01 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199606021439.QAA29788@wsooti22.win.tue.nl>
To: jg@w3.org
Cc: fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU, paulle@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/704
>I just went and looked at Content-Range and Range, and think that
>Roy is right; I don't think we have any problems in the spec.
>Range currently specifies it can only be used with Get or conditional
>GET requests.
>And yes, Roy is right about Content-Range being the right way to
>do range puts. 
>We have three choices:
>1) Right now, the spec is silent, and it may be best to keep
>it that way.
>2) We could put some verbiage in PUT to the effect that an error should 
>be returned if the client does not understand range puts if we wanted.
>As PUT is not implemented in most servers, I don't know how much
>of a compatibility problem we'd have with those few that do...
>3) We can explicitly forbid the use of Content-Range with PUT operations.

I'd go for 3).  If you want to put ranges, use the PATCH method.  I
see no reason to burden 1.1 servers that do implement PUT with code to
detect a Content-Range header and produce an error message.

Received on Sunday, 2 June 1996 07:43:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC