- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:45:03 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: jasnell@us.ibm.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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 UTC