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: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:38:53 +0000
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B46DB4DC-96CE-4A81-81B1-1FFC1C586771@gmail.com>
To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
I've updated the browser tests for default handling of new status codes and some updated behaviour added to chrome since i last performed the tests. the results are split into two tables based on if a content payload is provided in the response. i've also condensed the tables so that only deviations from the default handling are recorded.

http://www.cmhjones.com/browser-http-test-matrix.html

thanks,
cameron

On 02/12/2011, at 1:57 PM, mike amundsen wrote:

> Cameron:
> 
> once you complete the changes, send me a link and i'll replace that local file i am using now to your  link. that way any future changes will be automatically reflected from my page.
> 
> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> http://twitter.com@mamund
> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 08:53, Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 7 December 2011 15:39:30 GMT

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