- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:48:24 +0200
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On tis, 2007-07-31 at 18:17 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> 1) It seems that the meaning of Content-Location is universal for >> messages that carry an entity; I'm not sure what's the point in claiming >> that meaning does not apply to PUT or POST. > > Not sure. > > Personally I would rather see PUT be allowed to reject messages with an > mismatch in Content-Location. The result of such operation is not likely > to be what was intended.. Can you define "mismatch" here? When a client says "here's another Content location for the entity I'm sending", how can the server dtect a mismatch? (well, except for fetching the entity and comparing?) >> 2) Also: every time a limited set of methods is mentioned somewhere it >> feels like problematic spec writing. What makes PUT or POST so special >> in comparison to other methods? Maybe that they are the only methods in >> RFC2616 that carry request entity bodies? In which case the statement >> should be rephrased accordingly... > > Probably. > > Suggestion: > > Drop "PUT or POST " from that sentence, making it apply in general to > any kind of request. Which I guess is also what all servers do... That would work for me. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 18:48:36 UTC