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 19:35:18 -0700
Message-ID: <46B142E6.9010703@gmail.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

One additional point I thought of just as this was being sent... even
with the new status code, we will likely still need to say something
about 2xx responses that contain Content-Location

- James

James M Snell wrote:
> 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 02:35:24 GMT

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