- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 16:39:01 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: jg@w3.org
- Cc: fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU, paulle@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
jg@w3.org: > >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. Koen.
Received on Sunday, 2 June 1996 07:43:14 UTC