- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:37:33 +0100
- To: Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>
- CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-02-29 20:09, Mike Kelly wrote: > ... >> Which is even less interoperable than the Content-Range hack because >> now the site cannot even detect it. >> >> As I've told Mike a dozen times already, what he describes is contrary >> to the definition of PUT. It is therefore invalid HTTP. Whether it is >> valid in other protocols is not our problem. > > It can't be unambiguously contrary to 2616, otherwise why would there > have been any need to clarify the semantics via HTTPbis? I've answered that several times. We clarify things when we see that people get them wrong. That doesn't mean we made a normative change, we just try to optimize the spec for people who apparently have read something into 2616 which isn't there. > Sites can detect whether it is partial vs replace the same way they > distinguish between the intent of a POST requests - it depends on the > resource in question. The *site* can't know, unless sender and receiver are closely coupled. In which case you can of course do what you want, but don't claim that this is HTTP as specified. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 19:38:05 UTC