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

Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:20:54 -0700
Message-Id: <0F47AC96-7108-4841-8943-FF13AEAE095E@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Aug 7, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> I agree that that definition (as seen in <http://lists.w3.org/ 
> Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JulSep/0199.html>) makes sense,  
> although to make it work with PROPFIND/SEARCH/REPORT it would also  
> need to include the request *body*.
> However, I'm not 100% sure there's consensus for it. The major  
> change here is that it takes the request method into account. Code  
> that relies on it being method agnostic would break.
> (Such as a PROPPATCH with an If-Match header using a cache  
> validator previously returned in GET).

I am really not interested in doing contortions for the sake of
WebDAV's broken model.  WebDAV is, and always will be, a poor man's
exception to every rule of HTTP.  That's what the WG insisted on,
even when I explained why it wouldn't survive the next generation.

The only reason that such a request is valid is because a PROPPATCH
is generally intended for a specific representation, so testing the
If-Match on the body ETag is good enough for what PROPPATCH intends.
If the WebDAV server chooses to use the same entity-tag for both
properties and representation, then both the above request and my
proposal will work fine.  If not, then you should be using the ETag
returned on the PROPFIND response, not a GET response.

Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 18:21:09 UTC

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