W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > July to August 1996

Re: PUT method

From: Jeremey Barrett <jeremey@forequest.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: jna <jna@retina.net>
cc: www-talk@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.960817104130.25759B-100000@descartes.forequest.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, jna wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, Jeremey Barrett wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, I stupidly wrote (jna):
> > 
> > > 
> > > What exactly is a PUT method? At last check, there was no such method. 
> > 
> > PUT is part of the HTTP/1.0 spec in the Appendix on 'Additional Features',
> > with the caveat that it may or may not be implemented or implemented
> > correctly.  Is is used for replacing a particular URI. For example,
> > let's say you are remotely editing /blah/blah.html, and wish to replace
> > it. In theory, a PUT header followed by the document would replace
> > the existing one. There is a bunch of server config necessary to make this
> > really happen most likely.
> 
> I do remember this now, I guess I spaced the other day; It's supported by 
> a few modules for spinner that allow you to remotely edit pages. I also 
> believe that illustra put support for it in their web server as well.

I'm using Apache, and it supports PUT as well.

>  
> > PUT does in fact work, if passed to a CGI script. Using netscape gold,
> > you can 'Publish' a document via HTTP, which sends a PUT request followed
> > by the full HTML text of the document, as it should. A CGI reads this from
> > stdin, and does receive the document text. My problem is that the 
> > netscape browser converts forms with PUT methods to GET requests before 
> > sending them to the server, and I have no idea why.
> 
> Yep. Okay. Thanks for clearing this up. :) Has an RFC been established to
> account for the handling of user authorization and authentication when
> modifing files via a PUT method? It's probably an issue best left to
> particular implementations, but some form of standard would be nice. A
> typical implementation might rely on basic authentication first, and then
> use the REMOTE_USER id to evaluate permissions on the file being modified. 
> (just a guess)

Authentication for PUT is handled in the same way as for other requests,
so yes, your guess would certainly be possible, using a CGI for access
control.

Incidentally, PUT is fully part of the HTTP/1.1 spec.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jeremey Barrett
Senior Software Engineer                        jeremey@forequest.com
The ForeQuest Company                           http://www.forequest.com/

PGP Key fingerprint =  3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80  DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64
PGP Public Key: http://www.forequest.com/people/jeremey/pgpkey.html
                
		"less is more."  -- Mies van de Rohe.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMhYIyy/fy+vkqMxNAQEoXgP+MU0g4MzP56WPkEsQ4y99fwUrv8QhXP2f
wYrOb2VJoijLI3iHHtvjhRHv0Ac0NyDUmKU3PLSNKGXIahJzdRRBflUTEo19fFxr
Q6BPF9KlSs8vOt9hKB3/lRgbESsha4w7rzTi9nlpwYqbdEXilm7Opc7ej03MRVgo
4K6Wuo+CAYc=
=ds3h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 17 August 1996 14:01:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:19 GMT