- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:38:33 +0100
- To: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- CC: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-12-02 15:33, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote: > ... >> Many current server implementations of "PUT" treat the payload as what should be stored, and do not unwrap it. Why would they? >> >> The way to PUT binaries is to send them as-is. >> >> What problem do we solve by using multipart? > > i think the usage of PUT should be a bit more flexible than binary representations - the semantics are on uploading a representation, not a binary copy. > ... Yes. But what problem are we solving by using multipart? > ok, but that is still a different problem and while related i don't think it should hold back specifying how forms can work. Indeed. Specification-wise there's nothing left to do except reminding implementers about what the correct behavior is (and optimally have that in test cases). Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 14:39:16 UTC