- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:43:17 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, jasnell@us.ibm.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Jul 31, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Mark Baker wrote: > Hi Lisa, > > On 7/31/07, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> wrote: >> 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. > > That would be a broken client, AFAICT. Interesting! What's your basis for believing that? Would a client that cached the body of a 200 OK response in response to a GET behave correctly if it cached the body regardless of whether there was a Content-Location header? According to my reading of 2616, the Content-Location header might or might not be there if the response contains a representation of the resource. > Are you aware of any software > which behaves this way? No, because we don't have PATCH clients implemented yet. > > The normal meaning from 2616 seems to be "the request was successful, > here's some data". I don't see any reason to be more specific than > that. The 200 OK response for GET is certainly more specific than that -- the data has a specific context, address and cache behavior intended. That's what I'm driving at for PATCH. Lisa
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 17:43:34 UTC