- From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 07:36:10 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> On 26 Apr 2015, at 21:02, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
It would help if you explained how you disagree with the arguments put forward.
Let's try the Socratic method then:
(1) Do you agree that SEARCH is (should be) a method that is applied to the resource on which the request is made?
(a) if yes, then is the result usually the full representation returned as with GET? Or is it a partial representation?
(b) if no, how does the result of a SEARCH relate to the resource on which the method was applied?
Henry
>
> Best regards, Julian
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 27 April 2015 05:36:40 UTC