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

Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 07:55:16 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <130EC2F7-2BC2-4C7E-A6D2-1276E580F4D0@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Was he testing how browsers handled the indicated code in response to a GET here?

If so, what do the 3xx results he shows mean? Without the methodology, this raises more questions than it answers.

Cheers,


On 01/12/2011, at 11:09 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> FYI -- see attached chart about browser behavior vs status codes...
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE
> Date: 	Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:03:37 +0000
> From: 	Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
> To: 	mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
> CC: 	Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Yehuda Katz
> <wycats@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Yehuda\Mike\Juilan,
> 
> Its good to get back to this issue, hope it keeps the traction this time :)
> 
> Without going into too much detail yet, there were two points from the
> last discussions to be highlighted at this point.
> 
> The first is with regards to browser handling of responses. I did some
> thorough testing of the current state of play of browser behaviour in
> this area and found that browsers are on the whole up to spec with their
> behaviour and that the default for content responses is to render
> whatever payload is returned. I have a matrix of these responses which
> can be added to any docs [attached].
> 
> While performing the browser tests however, i started to doubt the
> necessity of such tests - perhaps this is a more methodological
> question, but is the html specification the place for defining http
> behaviour?
> 
> The other issue is that specifications for PUT and DELETE are not too
> held back with conformance for current server implementations. As new
> functionality to html and hence requiring to be explicitly added by
> authors there should not be any backward compatibility to break.
> 
> MIke, look forward to the updated docs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cameron Jones
> 


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/





Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 20:55:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT