Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On tis, 2008-07-29 at 16:20 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
>> In that case, I'm for Julian's proposal to simply remove "PUT or POST"
>> in the last paragraph.
> +1 on the first of those, where the server is still given persmission to
> ignore Content-Location in requests, but not on the second where this
> was removed.
> In the definition of PUT there is the following restriction which
> otherwise relates to Content-Location:
>   "The recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-* (e.g.
>    Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement
>    and MUST return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases."
 > ...

That's a good one, isn't it?

I read it as:

- find all content-* headers

- for those understood, either ignore them or process them

- if some are not understood, reject the request

Which means: it's ok to ignore Content-Location, if you "know" it.

BR, Julian

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 13:29:14 UTC