W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:28:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4891BDFF.5030702@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On tis, 2008-07-29 at 16:20 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> 
>> In that case, I'm for Julian's proposal to simply remove "PUT or POST"
>> in the last paragraph.
> 
> +1 on the first of those, where the server is still given persmission to
> ignore Content-Location in requests, but not on the second where this
> was removed.
> 
> In the definition of PUT there is the following restriction which
> otherwise relates to Content-Location:
> 
>   "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."
 > ...

That's a good one, isn't it?

I read it as:

- find all content-* headers

- for those understood, either ignore them or process them

- if some are not understood, reject the request

Which means: it's ok to ignore Content-Location, if you "know" it.

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 13:29:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:53 GMT