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

Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE

From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:08:32 -0800 (PST)
To: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAPW_8m4POQAYio6+VzFXbP-jb+huFqC0nA+E7CEAte8Yezne3g@mail.gmail.com>
thanks.

i'll update the link on my web page.

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/

http://twitter.com@mamund

http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me





On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:38, Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>wrote:

> I've updated the browser tests for default handling of new status codes 
> and some updated behaviour added to chrome since i last performed the 
> tests. the results are split into two tables based on if a content payload 
> is provided in the response. i've also condensed the tables so that only 
> deviations from the default handling are recorded.
>
> http://www.cmhjones.com/browser-http-test-matrix.html

>
> thanks,
> cameron
>
> On 02/12/2011, at 1:57 PM, mike amundsen wrote:
>
> Cameron:
>
> once you complete the changes, send me a link and i'll replace that local 
> file i am using now to your  link. that way any future changes will be 
> automatically reflected from my page.
>
> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/

> http://twitter.com@mamund

> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me

>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 08:53, Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 01/12/2011, at 9:03 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> > Ah, OK, missed that. Thanks. Still would be nice to have more details.
>>
>> i performed the tests manually using a html form which captured a status 
>> code to return and whether to include a payload or not. this was sent to a 
>> simple web server with POST and the server setup to create a response with 
>> the relevant status and content. the behaviour was observed and recored in 
>> the browser and using available debug tools.
>>
>> i used http POST to try and gather the behaviour which may be seen with 
>> the addition of new methods, testing over GET seemed a bit irrespective as 
>> it's only the browser's handling of retrieving a URL.
>>
>> the 3xx results are the most interesting as this is the area where there 
>> is the most room for interpretation on what an agent should do for the user.
>>
>> i'm updating it with as new status code tests and will split the table 
>> out, let me know if i can provide any more details.
>>
>> thanks,
>> cam
>>
>> >
>> > On 02/12/2011, at 7:59 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2011-12-01 21:55, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> >>> Was he testing how browsers handled the indicated code in response to 
>> a GET here?
>> >>>
>> >>> If so, what do the 3xx results he shows mean? Without the 
>> methodology, this raises more questions than it answers.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> It's all from a HTML form POST, AFAIU.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards, Julian
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 17:09:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:42 GMT