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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:23:35 +0200
Message-ID: <46AA3827.9030405@gmx.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

James M Snell wrote:
> 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

Hm. That makes PATCH "must-understand", contrary to most other HTTP verbs.

Why do we care?

> 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.

The last sentence sounds good, but I think everything else isn't needed.

Is there a particular header you have in mind that -- when ignored by 
the server -- would cause trouble?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 18:23:46 GMT

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