- From: Jeremey Barrett <jeremey@forequest.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
- To: jna <jna@retina.net>
- cc: www-talk@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, jna wrote: > 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. I'm using Apache, and it supports PUT 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) Authentication for PUT is handled in the same way as for other requests, so yes, your guess would certainly be possible, using a CGI for access control. Incidentally, PUT is fully part of the HTTP/1.1 spec. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jeremey Barrett Senior Software Engineer jeremey@forequest.com The ForeQuest Company http://www.forequest.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 PGP Public Key: http://www.forequest.com/people/jeremey/pgpkey.html "less is more." -- Mies van de Rohe. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMhYIyy/fy+vkqMxNAQEoXgP+MU0g4MzP56WPkEsQ4y99fwUrv8QhXP2f wYrOb2VJoijLI3iHHtvjhRHv0Ac0NyDUmKU3PLSNKGXIahJzdRRBflUTEo19fFxr Q6BPF9KlSs8vOt9hKB3/lRgbESsha4w7rzTi9nlpwYqbdEXilm7Opc7ej03MRVgo 4K6Wuo+CAYc= =ds3h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 17 August 1996 14:01:54 UTC