- From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@nysernet.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 09:04:05 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: paulle@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In a previous episode...Larry Masinter said: -> -> Ohmygod, I don't think we've really ever contemplated how Range -> requests should work with PUT. Personally, I think it should be -> disallowed. Illegal. An error. MUST NOT send. ABEND, eh?, forbidden, I disagree.. from http/1.1 ID 04 about 'PUT' -- of the one residing on the origin server. If the Request-URI does not point to an existing resource, and that URI is capable of being defined as a new resource by the requesting user agent, the origin server can create the resource with that URI. If a new resource is created, the origin server MUST inform the user agent via the 201 (Created) response. If an existing resource is modified, either the 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) response codes SHOULD be sent to indicate successful completion of the request. If the resource could not be created or modified with the Request-URI, an appropriate error response SHOULD be given that reflects the nature of the problem. -- PUT is pretty clearly designed to support updates as well as additions to files. Providing a mechanism to alter, say, 1 record of a flat file of fixed length records seems to make a lot of sense.. In addition to the usual concerns about versions that the client has, the server is going to have to add some locking mechanism here, but should certainly be allowed to implement it if they want to.. -> protocol violation; horns should go off, alarms should ring, etc. -> Also with POST and DELETE. Otherwise, you might have people believing -> that DELETE with Range: 10-12 means delete just those bytes? I agree Range is meaningless wrt POST and DELETE. -P
Received on Monday, 3 June 1996 06:05:59 UTC