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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:40:32 +1000
Message-Id: <DAD7B4D8-E108-4429-AA39-4885275EEC90@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i79


On 26/07/2007, at 3:35 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> the description of PUT states (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/ 
> rfc2616.html#rfc.section.9.6.p.1>):
>
> "The recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-* (e.g.  
> Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement and  
> MUST return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases."
>
> It's not clear to me what Content-* headers are? All headers  
> starting with the character sequence "Content-"? Just those defined  
> in RFC2616?
>
> Furthermore, that language sounds as if a server that ignores  
> Content-Language (as opposed to storing it with the entity) MUST  
> reject PUT requests that come with a Content-Language header. Is  
> this really intended? Does anybody implement that?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 03:40:49 GMT

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