Yes, I agree there would need to be some added definition for it to work clearly and interoperably. But I can't see how the mechanism itself is flawed other than being incompletely described and unimplemented :) Lisa On Feb 18, 2005, at 12:26 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > I think it is also not clear if its a hop-to-hop or end-to-end header. > So chances of getting it working in an uncontrolled environment are > not good. > > //Stefan > > Am 17.02.2005 um 22:28 schrieb Julian Reschke: > >> >> Helge Hess wrote: >>> On 17. Feb 2005, at 22:04 Uhr, Jim Whitehead wrote: >>>> 1) One problem clients currently encounter with PUT is determining >>>> whether >>>> they have permission to write to a specific location. At present, a >>>> client >>>> must submit a PUT (or ADDMEMBER) with the entire entity body, then >>>> wait for >>>> the response, or the authentication challenge. >>> Isn't that already solved with Expect: 100-continue? >>> http://zvon.org/tmRFC/RFC2616/Output/chapter14.html#sub20 >> >> Sort of. The problem is that it's extremely hard to implement using >> the Java servlet API (but that's "just" an implementation issue...). >> >> Best regards, Julian >> >> -- >> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >> > > >Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 16:38:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT