Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE

from the top of Cameron's doc:
"All tests performed using form POST to request test response"


mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me




On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 15:55, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Was he testing how browsers handled the indicated code in response to a
> GET here?
>
> If so, what do the 3xx results he shows mean? Without the methodology,
> this raises more questions than it answers.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 01/12/2011, at 11:09 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> > FYI -- see attached chart about browser behavior vs status codes...
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject:      Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE
> > Date:         Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:03:37 +0000
> > From:         Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
> > To:   mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
> > CC:   Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Yehuda Katz
> > <wycats@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Yehuda\Mike\Juilan,
> >
> > Its good to get back to this issue, hope it keeps the traction this time
> :)
> >
> > Without going into too much detail yet, there were two points from the
> > last discussions to be highlighted at this point.
> >
> > The first is with regards to browser handling of responses. I did some
> > thorough testing of the current state of play of browser behaviour in
> > this area and found that browsers are on the whole up to spec with their
> > behaviour and that the default for content responses is to render
> > whatever payload is returned. I have a matrix of these responses which
> > can be added to any docs [attached].
> >
> > While performing the browser tests however, i started to doubt the
> > necessity of such tests - perhaps this is a more methodological
> > question, but is the html specification the place for defining http
> > behaviour?
> >
> > The other issue is that specifications for PUT and DELETE are not too
> > held back with conformance for current server implementations. As new
> > functionality to html and hence requiring to be explicitly added by
> > authors there should not be any backward compatibility to break.
> >
> > MIke, look forward to the updated docs.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cameron Jones
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>