Re: Proposed HTTP SEARCH method update

On 4/26/2015 12:20 PM, wrote:
> For example, my intuition that SEARCH returns a partial representation
> has led us  to discover ( thanks to Amos Jeffries ) that we should look
> to adopt  a 206 status code as defined in RFC 7233.
> Does this mean that example 4.1 from draft-snell [1] where the SEARCH returns
> a 200 is wrong? Or is it correct that SEARCH is not cacheable other than
> via a 206 route? Is this something one can add later, or may not specifying
> this now lead to problems further down the road?
Good question, since it can be argued that Range Requests bear some relation to SEARCH!

Best, Ashok

Received on Sunday, 26 April 2015 17:43:03 UTC