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

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

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:26:33 -0700
Message-Id: <02335DC1-30FB-4285-948B-57013FCD77E0@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.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.


>> 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.

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 22:26:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC