W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:59:17 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640707310959h6f7a59f5i6016648d74281482@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Cc: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, jasnell@us.ibm.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Hi Lisa,

On 7/31/07, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.

That would be a broken client, AFAICT.  Are you aware of any software
which behaves this way?

>  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.

The normal meaning from 2616 seems to be "the request was successful,
here's some data".  I don't see any reason to be more specific than

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 16:59:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:31 UTC