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

Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code

From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 08:15:32 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinW9NPzwXkQ-RoU0yoL7JJD6M-L=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 03:36, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 04.04.2011 07:05, mike amundsen wrote:
>>
>> Julian:
>>
>> Can you post one or more typical HTTP request/response examples of how
>> PUT/DELETE interactions work for WebDAV servers today? This would help
>> me better understand what is/is-not possible w/ HTML FORMS that
>> support PUT/DELETE.
>> ...
>
> WebDAV clients usually aren't interested in the response bodies for
> successful PUT/DELETE requests; for them what matters is just the status
> code.
I assume this to mean that agents talking to these WebDAV servers
usually just receive status codes in responses w/o bodies. IOW, 200
w/o bodies as well as 201/202/204, right?

Is 201 a common response to PUT for these servers? 202? 204? Is 204
the most common response for DELETE? or 200?

>
> I know of WebDAV servers that simply sent empty response bodies, but also
> some which send a small "status" message in HTML format (I think this is the
> case for Apache/mod_dav).

So Apache's WebDAV returns bodies for it's responses for PUT/DELETEs.

>
> So sending additional data is almost harmless; except when it makes the
> protocol inefficient. For instance, echoing the the representation in a PUT
> response would be very bad for everything but small payloads.
>
> Does this help?

Yes, it's a start.

Seems a work item would be to identify key WebDAV implementations
(e.g. mod_dav, MSFT's WebDAV?, etc.) and get some details on just what
is returned for PUT/DELETE. I'll add this to the document as a to-do.

>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 12:16:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:27 GMT