- From: jna <jna@retina.net>
- Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 13:34:40 +0500 (GMT+0500)
- To: Jeremey Barrett <jeremey@forequest.com>
- cc: www-talk@w3.org
On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, Jeremey Barrett wrote: > On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, I stupidly wrote (jna): > > > > > What exactly is a PUT method? At last check, there was no such method. > > PUT is part of the HTTP/1.0 spec in the Appendix on 'Additional Features', > with the caveat that it may or may not be implemented or implemented > correctly. Is is used for replacing a particular URI. For example, > let's say you are remotely editing /blah/blah.html, and wish to replace > it. In theory, a PUT header followed by the document would replace > the existing one. There is a bunch of server config necessary to make this > really happen most likely. I do remember this now, I guess I spaced the other day; It's supported by a few modules for spinner that allow you to remotely edit pages. I also believe that illustra put support for it in their web server as well. > PUT does in fact work, if passed to a CGI script. Using netscape gold, > you can 'Publish' a document via HTTP, which sends a PUT request followed > by the full HTML text of the document, as it should. A CGI reads this from > stdin, and does receive the document text. My problem is that the > netscape browser converts forms with PUT methods to GET requests before > sending them to the server, and I have no idea why. Yep. Okay. Thanks for clearing this up. :) Has an RFC been established to account for the handling of user authorization and authentication when modifing files via a PUT method? It's probably an issue best left to particular implementations, but some form of standard would be nice. A typical implementation might rely on basic authentication first, and then use the REMOTE_USER id to evaluate permissions on the file being modified. (just a guess) --john
Received on Saturday, 17 August 1996 13:39:36 UTC