- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:32:44 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > The problems that I see here are: > > 1) for PROPFIND and friends, not only request header fields and > method names, but also the request *body* select the variant -- I > don't have a problem with that, but it should be spelled out. I have lots of problems with that, though I don't think it impacts the definition of variant. What does PROPFIND specify in the body? > 2) a bigger problem IMHO is that allowing this additional level of > indirection creates different classes of entity tags. Example: > Entity tags returned in GET/HEAD/PUT/POST/DELETE can only be used > for GET/HEAD/PUT/POST/DELETE. Similarly, for PROPFIND/PROPPATCH. > I'm a bit concerned about that. It is already true in practice -- people just aren't aware of it, or are inserting fake etags just to comply with nonsense. From my perspective, PROPFIND/PROPPATCH are incredibly bad protocols within a protocol (essentially, search and replace tunneled through other resource interfaces). I don't need HTTP to make sense of them any more than I need it to make sense of POST requests. ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 18 August 2007 01:32:56 UTC