- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:18:50 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Haven't heard any objection, so we'll try that. This resolution will also close #102. On 14/07/2010, at 7:45 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I've seen one message agreeing with Roy's proposal to remove the Content-* language as per below. > > Note that doing this would close both #79 and #102 <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/102>. > > In the discussion of #102, Roy said > >> At most, this should only warn implementations that all of the metadata needs to be understood or discarded whenever changes are made to the corresponding data. > > > I think it's worth adding a bit of (non-requirement) guidance to the definition of PUT along these lines if we remove this requirement. > > Any objections to closing these issues by doing so? > > > > On 30/07/2009, at 8:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> The editors spent some time discussing >> >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/79 >> >> with regard to the requirement in RFC 2616, section.9.6, >> the description of PUT: >> >> "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." >> >> The purpose of this requirement was to enable some future >> use of Content-Range for the purpose of partial updates. >> >> No server that I am aware of supports that requirement. >> Partial updates should be accomplished using a new method >> (PATCH) rather than a retroactive requirement on deployed >> services that nobody implemented. >> >> My proposal is to remove that sentence from the spec and >> note in the changes section that the requirement was removed >> in favor of deploying PATCH. >> >> ....Roy >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 12:19:35 UTC