W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Question on new PUT section

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:54:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4D7A7DEC.6050204@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11.03.2011 20:45, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Robert Brewer wrote:
>
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1158
>> modified section 7.6.p.5 to say:
>>
>> "For example, if the target resource is configured to always
>> have a Content-Type of "text/html" and the representation being
>> PUT has a Content-Type of "image/jpeg", then the origin server
>> SHOULD do one of: (a) reconfigure the target resource to
>> reflect the new media type; (b) transform the PUT representation
>> to a format consistent with that of the resource before saving
>> it as the new resource state; or, (c) reject the request with a
>> 409 response indicating that the target resource is limited to
>> "text/html", perhaps including a link to a different resource
>> that would be a suitable target for the new representation.
>>
>> Roy, can you explain why 409 is a better choice than 415 in case (c)?
>
> It is just a slight preference for uniform handling of PUT
> (409 is also used by webdav, IIRC).  415 was created for POST

...WebDAV does use 409 in several places, but it doesn't say anything 
specific about PUT. (as far as I recall)

> handling processes.  It could go either way for this example.
>
> Anyone know of implementations that do this kind of error?

I believe Spring/Rest will return 415 if the media type isn't accepted.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 19:55:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:37 GMT