- From: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 14:49:46 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 02/12/2011, at 2:38 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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? i could write a form which PUT a file with metadata. > >> 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 great, i was thinking the same thing :) cam
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 14:50:26 UTC