- From: Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:04:02 +0000
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2012/3/1 Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>: > ons 2012-02-29 klockan 23:52 +0000 skrev Mike Kelly: >> Upgrading PUT so it is less specific about replacement wouldn't result >> in this breakage. Clients don't make requests to servers arbitrarily, >> they make them according to whatever application they are fulfilling. >> i.e. if an application is operating on the basis that PUT requests to >> its resources are replacements, then HTTP relaxing the semantics of >> PUT to permit partials would not create breakage. > > That's besides the point. To be able to extend PUT like this within > HTTP/1.x it needs to be possible to send the extended request form > arbitrarily without causing breakage. A condition that partial PUT may > only be sent if it's known prior to sending the request that the > receiving server is somehow magically capable of accepting this form of > PUT without causing breakage is not acceptable within HTTP/1.x. > > For a change in PUT syntax to be acceptable within HTTP/1.1 you MUST be > able to send such PUT requests to any server without any prior knowledge > of the capabilities of that server and know that the server will process > the request with an acceptable outcome. Storing the partial > representation as the sole representation of the resource is not > regarded as an acceptable outcome so this is not acceptable extension of > PUT within HTTP/1.x. Ok, so it sounds to me like you are saying that what would happen in reality is besides the point because there is a rule governing the design of PUT in HTTP/1.x which must not be broken. Is there any evidence of that rule producing some benefit to the web? Cheers, Mike
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 01:04:31 UTC