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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:48:24 +0200
Message-ID: <46AF83F8.8070009@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On tis, 2007-07-31 at 18:17 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> 1) It seems that the meaning of Content-Location is universal for 
>> messages that carry an entity; I'm not sure what's the point in claiming 
>> that meaning does not apply to PUT or POST.
> 
> Not sure.
> 
> Personally I would rather see PUT be allowed to reject messages with an
> mismatch in Content-Location. The result of such operation is not likely
> to be what was intended..

Can you define "mismatch" here? When a client says "here's another 
Content location for the entity I'm sending", how can the server dtect a 
mismatch? (well, except for fetching the entity and comparing?)

>> 2) Also: every time a limited set of methods is mentioned somewhere it 
>> feels like problematic spec writing. What makes PUT or POST so special 
>> in comparison to other methods? Maybe that they are the only methods in 
>> RFC2616 that carry request entity bodies? In which case the statement 
>> should be rephrased accordingly...
> 
> Probably.
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
> Drop "PUT or POST " from that sentence, making it apply in general to
> any kind of request. Which I guess is also what all servers do...

That would work for me.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 18:48:36 GMT

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