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

Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE

From: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:53:44 +0000
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C2FC7433-5AAB-4CC1-85A2-128D6E344E78@gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

On 01/12/2011, at 9:03 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Ah, OK, missed that. Thanks. Still would be nice to have more details.

i performed the tests manually using a html form which captured a status code to return and whether to include a payload or not. this was sent to a simple web server with POST and the server setup to create a response with the relevant status and content. the behaviour was observed and recored in the browser and using available debug tools.

i used http POST to try and gather the behaviour which may be seen with the addition of new methods, testing over GET seemed a bit irrespective as it's only the browser's handling of retrieving a URL.

the 3xx results are the most interesting as this is the area where there is the most room for interpretation on what an agent should do for the user. 

i'm updating it with as new status code tests and will split the table out, let me know if i can provide any more details.

thanks,
cam

> 
> On 02/12/2011, at 7:59 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> On 2011-12-01 21:55, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> 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,
>> 
>> It's all from a HTML form POST, AFAIU.
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 13:54:18 GMT

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