On 6/14/06, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/13/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's not capable of storing entities as requested, then it
> shouldn't send a successful response message to a PUT request, since
> that's what PUT means.
I'm sorry but there is nothing in RFC 2616 that
calls for a 'byte-for-byte' interpretation of PUT.
And since the APP is not a 'must-understand' protocol
there is nothing wrong with a server ignoring foreign
markup.
I didn't say byte-for-byte.
It's simply a matter of whether the server can do what the client
asked of it. In order to answer 2xx to a PUT, the server needs to
have set the state of the identified resource to that represented by
the entity body in the request. As the extension in question is part
of what the client is asking to be stored, the server can only ignore
it if it knows it to be a no-op, just as if it were whitespace as Rob
points out.
Luckily, there's no grey area here that I'm aware of.
Mark.
