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

Re: Resumable Uploads

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:59:27 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <EA846138-6537-4709-AC44-149873716E29@mnot.net>
To: Felix Geisendörfer <felix@transloadit.com>

On 18/04/2013, at 11:37 PM, Felix Geisendörfer <felix@transloadit.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm interested in finding out how to perform resumable uploads over http while being compliant with existing specifications. The result of this work will be shared with the community to create interopable server/client software to simplify file uploading on the web.

Thanks!

Daniel 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.

I agree. You can't guarantee that a new header is understood by the recipient (M-PUT died long, long ago), and this isn't a backwards-compatible change in the semantics of PUT.

Martin then said:

> I'd have thought that this is a perfect fit for PATCH.  Nothing new needed.

Agreed, except a new PATCH format that's range-friendly would be necessary. That's not a huge undertaking, because it could reuse at least some of the existing syntax.

I'd be willing to help work on this, or just provide input / reviews.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 05:59:53 UTC

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