W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:07:12 -0700
Message-ID: <46AA3450.3050308@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Julian: for the PATCH doc, how's this:

If a PATCH request contains any entity-headers the server does not
understand, the server MUST return a 501 (Not Implemented) response. A
server that understands a particular entity-header can choose to ignore
it; however, doing so can produce results that are unexpected or
unintended by the client. All entity-headers contained in the request
apply only to the contained patch document and MUST NOT be applied to
the resource being modified.

- James

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Well, I think you're using a _very_ liberal interpretation. How can
>>> you say a server "implements" Content-Language, when it just drops
>>> the value?
>>
>> I don't need to, as it is sufficient to "understand" the header...
> 
> Good point.
> 
> So let's try to clarify:
> 
> (1) Any header starting with "Content-" not understood by the server
> needs to cause a 501.
> 
> (2) For the Content-* headers defined in RFC2616, this means:
> 
> Content-Encoding: store it with the entity, or drop it
> Content-Language: store it with the entity, or drop it
> Content-Length: must be checked (that's part of the message transmission
> semantics)
> Content-Location: store it with the entity, or drop it
> Content-MD5: check the hash code?
> Content-Range: implement or reject
> Content-Type: store it with the entity, or drop it
> 
> ?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 18:07:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT