- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:45:05 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
I've seen one message agreeing with Roy's proposal to remove the Content-* language as per below. Note that doing this would close both #79 and #102 <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/102>. In the discussion of #102, Roy said > At most, this should only warn implementations that all of the metadata needs to be understood or discarded whenever changes are made to the corresponding data. I think it's worth adding a bit of (non-requirement) guidance to the definition of PUT along these lines if we remove this requirement. Any objections to closing these issues by doing so? On 30/07/2009, at 8:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > The editors spent some time discussing > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/79 > > with regard to the requirement in RFC 2616, section.9.6, > the description of PUT: > > "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." > > The purpose of this requirement was to enable some future > use of Content-Range for the purpose of partial updates. > > No server that I am aware of supports that requirement. > Partial updates should be accomplished using a new method > (PATCH) rather than a retroactive requirement on deployed > services that nobody implemented. > > My proposal is to remove that sentence from the spec and > note in the changes section that the requirement was removed > in favor of deploying PATCH. > > ....Roy > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 05:45:37 UTC