- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 21:02:28 +0200
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2015-04-26 19:42, Ashok Malhotra wrote: > > On 4/26/2015 12:20 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net 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! > Julian? Right now I neither see how a SEARCH response is necessarily a partial representation of the request resource, nor any relation to HTTP Range requests. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 26 April 2015 19:03:04 UTC