- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:06:47 PDT
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@w3.org>, <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "Yoram Last" <ylast@mindless.com>
- Cc: "WEBDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> >My belief is that HTTP interoperability testing for PUT and > >DELETE has been superficial. What I meant was that while we gave people a chart to fill out for PUT and DELETE with "No (not implemented), Yes (implemented), Tested (against two independent implementations)", I'm not sure exactly what they tested, and whether they tested error cases and the handling of response codes, and whether there was a clear matching of expectiations of what the state of the resources might or might not be after the operations were completed. > In the later case, there is plenty examples of HTTP/1.1 working just fine, > see for example > http://www.w3.org/WinCom/NoMoreLostUpdates.html which is fully implemented and supported in libwww, jigsaw, and amaya. This isn't part of the HTTP/1.1 spec, though. And it requires some amount of support for etags in association with documents that are being PUT. You've noted some browsers and servers for which this method works, but since it isn't in the spec, it's less likely to be widely implemented and become part of the "standard" for HTTP (to go beyond draft) without an additional specification. I don't see a problem with that; I was just trying to point out that if the webdav group finds out that HTTP is underspecified somewhere, we could specify it more carefully. Larry
Received on Monday, 26 April 1999 18:07:09 UTC