W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Resumable Uploads

From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:42:53 +0200 (CEST)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Felix Geisendörfer <felix@transloadit.com>, Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>, Kevin Swiber <kswiber@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1304191335410.3525@tvnag.unkk.fr>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Julian Reschke wrote:

> "An origin server SHOULD reject any PUT request that contains a 
> Content-Range header field (Section 4.2 of [Part5]), since it might be 
> misinterpreted as partial content (or might be partial content that is being 
> mistakenly PUT as a full representation).

This explanation basically rules out PUT completely for upload resume, as even 
if this would instead be done with an imaginary new header called 
Partial-update-of-remote-thing-please:, it could also become subject of 
getting handled as a full representation by mistake.

And if PATCH is ruled out because how browser APIs, I guess only POST is left.

(I personally don't think limitations in existing APIs are a very good 
arguments though, as we're surely forced to update things - including APIs - 
to take advantage of this once we agree on how things should work.)

> If you believe that this is unreasonable, now and here are the right place 
> to discuss it.

My personal belief used to be that Content-Range was a suitable header for 
this purpose, back with the original RFC2616 wording. With the updated httpbis 
wording it is clear that Content-Range doesn't work for this.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 11:43:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC