- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:34:06 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, jasnell@us.ibm.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Jul 27, 2007, at 10:34 AM, James M Snell wrote: > > Hey Mark, > > Yeah, I think you're right on the Content-Location thing. FWIW, > Atompub > takes the same approach. > > > Mark Baker wrote: >> >> James, I hope you incorporate the change I requested here; >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JulSep/0052.html >> >> Thanks. >> >> Mark. >> If we allow the server to return arbitrary bodies in a 200 response to a PATCH, we'll have to be very clear on how clients should handle the returned information. A caching or synching client might use the body as the new representation of the resource regardless of what headers appeared in the 200 response. Are there any other headers besides "Content-Location" which might indicate whether the response body was a representation of the resource or something else? If we don't have an immediate use for the 200 body other than returning a reasonable representation of the resource, let's narrow down the potential meanings and simply require one meaning for 200 OK. Otherwise, without an immediate implementation to test against, I am not too hopeful about clients handling properly a 200 OK which differs from the normal meaning.
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 16:34:17 UTC