- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:52:51 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: >[snip] >> --- >> 208 Content Returned > > 209. (see > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-19#section-12>). > Ah, right. I had thought I'd seen 208 used somewhere before. Thanks for the reference. >> The request has succeeded. The information returned with the response >> is equivalent to what would be returned in a subsequent GET on the >> resource. > > This may need to state something about variant selection. > Likely. Do you have a specific suggestion? >> 418 Preference Failed >> >> The preference given in a Prefer request-header field was understood by >> could not be met by this server. > > I'm not sure this should even be an error condition. Wouldn't it be > wiser to just let the server execute the operation? It's "preference", > not "expectation", after all. > Well, the issue here is that it is not clear whether or not the server did not understand a preference or just decided not to honor it. If there's no real value in that distinction, then yes, this code is not necessary. > [snip] >> >> Thoughts? > > Also, I'd clarify that the default response for a successful PATCH would > be 204, not 208. > I'm assuming you meant the default preference for a successful PATCH. There would be no default response. > And then, this probably should go into a separate spec :-). > Likely. > Best regards, > > Julian > - James
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 21:52:57 UTC