- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:26:33 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 1, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > On 8/1/07, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: >> Or a new 2xx status code that specifically says the enclosed response >> entity is as if it were a response to GET on the new state? > > That would be fine with me. But earlier you said; > > "There is no reason not to define a 200 response to PATCH as being the > same as the representation that would have been received in a GET > response after the patch has been successfully applied" > > So to be clear, are you now suggesting that a 200 PATCH response would > *not* have this specific meaning, and that only this new response code > would indicate that it did have it? If so, great, we're in sync. Yes. >> I would >> prefer a new response code at this point, since experience has shown >> that content-location is difficult to reconstruct in the presence of >> intermediaries. > > Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. It is a common problem with HTTP gateways (a.k.a., reverse proxies) that divert requests at a firewall. (Actually, the real problem is with people confusing location with configuration, but that's a long story). Authoring servers tend to suffer more from gateway-style "protection" than normal HTTP servers. If everyone implemented HTTP as specified, there would be no problem. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 22:26:48 UTC