W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Semantics of Content-Range in the PUT method

From: Paul Hethmon <phethmon@utk.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:57:35 EST
Message-Id: <199700231157.3730620.19@hops.ag.utk.edu>
To: Gordon Strachan <strachan%waterloo.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2305

Addressed to: Gordon Strachan <strachan@waterloo.hp.com>
              HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>

** Reply to note from Gordon Strachan <strachan@waterloo.hp.com> Thu, 23 Jan 97 11:37:03 EST 
My take on it is that Content-Range has limited usefulness 
for the PUT method in the general case. If Jigsaw ignores 
the header, then it is violating 9.6, my server always 
returns a 501 if Content-Range is given in a PUT request. All 
of the potential problems you pointed out are just too 
I could see it's usefulness in a special purpose case, perhaps 
if you're just using HTTP as the protocol between special 
purpose clients and servers, not web browsers and servers. You 
might then update a single record in a database, etc. 
I went through the possibilities when designing the server 
and just discarded putting the two together because of the 
potential trouble they could cause. 

Paul Hethmon 
phethmon@hethmon.com -- phethmon@utk.edu 
Inet.Mail Internet Mail Server 
www.hethmon.com -- ftp.hethmon.com 
Received on Thursday, 23 January 1997 09:02:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC