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

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:34:06 -0700
Message-Id: <646B4C6C-2043-461C-9ABD-F9BBD3272060@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, jasnell@us.ibm.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>


On Jul 27, 2007, at 10:34 AM, James M Snell wrote:

>
> Hey Mark,
>
> Yeah, I think you're right on the Content-Location thing.  FWIW,  
> Atompub
> takes the same approach.
>
>
> Mark Baker wrote:
>>
>> James, I hope you incorporate the change I requested here;
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JulSep/0052.html
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Mark.
>>

If we allow the server to return arbitrary bodies in a 200 response  
to a PATCH, we'll have to be very clear on how clients should handle  
the returned information.  A caching or synching client might use the  
body as the new representation of the resource regardless of what  
headers appeared in the 200 response.  Are there any other headers  
besides "Content-Location" which might indicate whether the response  
body was a representation of the resource or something else?

If we don't have an immediate use for the 200 body other than  
returning a reasonable representation of the resource, let's narrow  
down the potential meanings and simply require one meaning for 200  
OK.  Otherwise, without an immediate implementation to test against,  
I am not too hopeful about clients handling properly a 200 OK which  
differs from the normal meaning.
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 16:34:17 GMT

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