W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Follow-up about PUT and DELETE in form methods

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:04:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE74D52.8030004@gmx.de>
To: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
CC: thibault <thibault@miximum.fr>, public-html-comments@w3.org
On 2011-12-13 13:48, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote:
> ...
>> In my mind, this may be true to some extent. For example, let's say I'm browsing my blog backend, opening the latest post page, and sending a successful DELETE request. If the server replies with a 204 (no content) response, what should my browser do? Nothing? Redirect to post-list?
> There is nothing which specifies that a server *must* respond to a DELETE with a 204. Why is 204 deemed to be the correct response? If a server is communicating with a user through a html-browser it should be returning content for the user to see. If the server isn't currently doing that, it doesn't invalidate the request, it just means the server doesn't implement that.
> ...

204 is a plausible response because there's really nothing else to say 
when a client requests a delete, and the served did it.

"If a server is communicating with a user through a html-browser it 
should be returning content for the user to see."

How would it know that?

>> Is there a list of conflicting use-cases? What is the state of the draft proposal? Can I help in some way?
> A list of use cases and concerns to address is really useful, the work Mike has started contains the most up to date state of a proposal.
> With some further thought, instead of reopening the bug i will just request for it to be raised as a tracker issue as it will require the full attention of the working group. From there proposals are solicited as a means of applying changes to the specification.
> I hope that you and everyone else who has been involved so far will remain engaged in the issue and that this will progress united and with as much community help as can be provided.

I think this would be premature without a complete proposal. And no, I 
don't think this is going to be in HTML5, unless there'll be a big 
change to the proposed timeline.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 13:04:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:28 UTC