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: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:29:55 -0700
Message-ID: <46B141A3.7070901@gmail.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Just so I'm clear on this: the new response code would be used to
indicate that the response entity is equivalent to what would be
returned on a subsequent GET. If so, I'm perfectly fine with that and
have no problem adding it to the spec.

- James

Mark Baker wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
> Great.
> So I'm going to propose that we add this response code to the PATCH
> draft.  What does everyone think?
> Mark.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 02:30:06 UTC

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