- From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 08:15:32 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 03:36, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 04.04.2011 07:05, mike amundsen wrote: >> >> Julian: >> >> Can you post one or more typical HTTP request/response examples of how >> PUT/DELETE interactions work for WebDAV servers today? This would help >> me better understand what is/is-not possible w/ HTML FORMS that >> support PUT/DELETE. >> ... > > WebDAV clients usually aren't interested in the response bodies for > successful PUT/DELETE requests; for them what matters is just the status > code. I assume this to mean that agents talking to these WebDAV servers usually just receive status codes in responses w/o bodies. IOW, 200 w/o bodies as well as 201/202/204, right? Is 201 a common response to PUT for these servers? 202? 204? Is 204 the most common response for DELETE? or 200? > > I know of WebDAV servers that simply sent empty response bodies, but also > some which send a small "status" message in HTML format (I think this is the > case for Apache/mod_dav). So Apache's WebDAV returns bodies for it's responses for PUT/DELETEs. > > So sending additional data is almost harmless; except when it makes the > protocol inefficient. For instance, echoing the the representation in a PUT > response would be very bad for everything but small payloads. > > Does this help? Yes, it's a start. Seems a work item would be to identify key WebDAV implementations (e.g. mod_dav, MSFT's WebDAV?, etc.) and get some details on just what is returned for PUT/DELETE. I'll add this to the document as a to-do. > > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 12:16:08 UTC