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

Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE

From: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 14:49:46 +0000
Cc: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <ECD2ED3D-8C2C-442C-9B1D-FD7A95E0C18F@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 02/12/2011, at 2:38 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-12-02 15:33, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote:
>> ...
>>> Many current server implementations of "PUT" treat the payload as what should be stored, and do not unwrap it. Why would they?
>>> The way to PUT binaries is to send them as-is.
>>> What problem do we solve by using multipart?
>> i think the usage of PUT should be a bit more flexible than binary representations - the semantics are on uploading a representation, not a binary copy.
>> ...
> Yes. But what problem are we solving by using multipart?

i could write a form which PUT a file with metadata.

>> ok, but that is still a different problem and while related i don't think it should hold back specifying how forms can work.
> Indeed. Specification-wise there's nothing left to do except reminding implementers about what the correct behavior is (and optimally have that in test cases).
> Best regards, Julian

great, i was thinking the same thing :)

Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 14:50:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:18 UTC