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

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

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:45:03 -0700
Message-Id: <61AC4C08-F78A-4965-B352-5705B8E004AA@osafoundation.org>
Cc: jasnell@us.ibm.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

We could certainly add "Content-Range header MUST not appear in a  
PATCH request".  That could even be overridden by a future spec that  
uses the Content-Range header (and other directives, to be sure) to  
extend PATCH to replace certain ranges of the resource being updated.

Did you have a recommendation for the Content-Range header?

Lisa

On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>> (*) So, what does "Content-Range" mean for PATCH?
>> I can certainly deal with something along these lines.  I agree  
>> this kind of thing is poorly implemented and appreciate the  
>> testing.  If 2616 changes we could also change PATCH if the timing  
>> is right.
>> When should we attempt to have a HTTP Interop event?  A test suite  
>> like LITMUS (in fact I think part of Litmus can be reused) would  
>> go a long way towards alerting implementors to simple requirements  
>> that are easily missed.  A test suite could attempt a PUT with  
>> "Content-BOGUS: MUST FAIL" (assuming we kept this requirement) and  
>> expect to see at least some kind of error if not a 501.
>
> So again, what is the semantics of "Content-Range" in the context  
> of PATCH?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 17:45:18 GMT

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