On 6/14/06, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/13/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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,
The server can ignore it if it doesn't know about that particular
piece of foreign markup, see RFC 4287, Section 6.3:
"""When unknown foreign markup is encountered as a child of atom:entry,
atom:feed, or a Person construct, Atom Processors MAY bypass the
markup and any textual content and MUST NOT change their behavior as
a result of the markup's presence.
I'm aware of that, but that's not what I was talking about with the
no-op. What I was talking about was extensions which semantics
identical to whitespace; meaningless extensions.
Besides, PUT means store, not process.
Mark.
