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

Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:52:51 -0700
Message-ID: <46B3A3B3.1020807@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>



Julian Reschke wrote:
>[snip]
>> ---
>> 208 Content Returned
> 
> 209. (see
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-19#section-12>).
> 

Ah, right. I had thought I'd seen 208 used somewhere before. Thanks for
the reference.

>> The request has succeeded.  The information returned with the response
>> is equivalent to what would be returned in a subsequent GET on the
>> resource.
> 
> This may need to state something about variant selection.
> 

Likely. Do you have a specific suggestion?

>> 418 Preference Failed
>>
>> The preference given in a Prefer request-header field was understood by
>> could not be met by this server.
> 
> I'm not sure this should even be an error condition. Wouldn't it be
> wiser to just let the server execute the operation? It's "preference",
> not "expectation", after all.
> 

Well, the issue here is that it is not clear whether or not the server
did not understand a preference or just decided not to honor it.  If
there's no real value in that distinction, then yes, this code is not
necessary.

> [snip]
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Also, I'd clarify that the default response for a successful PATCH would
> be 204, not 208.
> 

I'm assuming you meant the default preference for a successful PATCH.
There would be no default response.

> And then, this probably should go into a separate spec :-).
> 

Likely.

> Best regards,
> 
> Julian
> 

- James
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 21:52:57 GMT

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