- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:59:17 -0400
- 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? Not AFAIK. > 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 that. Mark. -- 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