- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:07:12 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian: for the PATCH doc, how's this: If a PATCH request contains any entity-headers the server does not understand, the server MUST return a 501 (Not Implemented) response. A server that understands a particular entity-header can choose to ignore it; however, doing so can produce results that are unexpected or unintended by the client. All entity-headers contained in the request apply only to the contained patch document and MUST NOT be applied to the resource being modified. - James Julian Reschke wrote: > > Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> * Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Well, I think you're using a _very_ liberal interpretation. How can >>> you say a server "implements" Content-Language, when it just drops >>> the value? >> >> I don't need to, as it is sufficient to "understand" the header... > > Good point. > > So let's try to clarify: > > (1) Any header starting with "Content-" not understood by the server > needs to cause a 501. > > (2) For the Content-* headers defined in RFC2616, this means: > > Content-Encoding: store it with the entity, or drop it > Content-Language: store it with the entity, or drop it > Content-Length: must be checked (that's part of the message transmission > semantics) > Content-Location: store it with the entity, or drop it > Content-MD5: check the hash code? > Content-Range: implement or reject > Content-Type: store it with the entity, or drop it > > ? > > Best regards, Julian > > >
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 18:07:18 UTC