- From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:42:53 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Felix Geisendörfer <felix@transloadit.com>, Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>, Kevin Swiber <kswiber@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Julian Reschke wrote: > "An origin server SHOULD reject any PUT request that contains a > Content-Range header field (Section 4.2 of [Part5]), since it might be > misinterpreted as partial content (or might be partial content that is being > mistakenly PUT as a full representation). This explanation basically rules out PUT completely for upload resume, as even if this would instead be done with an imaginary new header called Partial-update-of-remote-thing-please:, it could also become subject of getting handled as a full representation by mistake. And if PATCH is ruled out because how browser APIs, I guess only POST is left. (I personally don't think limitations in existing APIs are a very good arguments though, as we're surely forced to update things - including APIs - to take advantage of this once we agree on how things should work.) > If you believe that this is unreasonable, now and here are the right place > to discuss it. My personal belief used to be that Content-Range was a suitable header for this purpose, back with the original RFC2616 wording. With the updated httpbis wording it is clear that Content-Range doesn't work for this. -- / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 11:43:28 UTC