Re: Updated Patch

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> ...
> If I had a better memory, I wouldn't have circular arguments like this.  
> Argh.  Yeah, Content-Type is universally used to indicate the content of 
> the payload, and shouldn't be used to change the Content-Type of the 
> resource being patched.
> ...

s/shouldn't/can't/

> There is a minor problem of Content-Language, I think the other 
> Content-* headers are even more irrelevant.  How many systems out there 
> actually save the Content-Language provided by the client in a PUT?  And 

Some, at least (I wrote parts of one).

> for those systems, is the only way to change the Content-Language to 
> issue another whole PUT?  What would those systems want a PATCH with a 
> Content-Language to mean -- (1) "This is the new Content-Language for 
> the resource, please save it" or (2) "This is the language of the PATCH 
> payload so it's irrelevant, throw it away" or (3) illegal.

If *editing* of existing entity headers is needed, we *could* define a 
specific format (+ mime type) for it.

So far, I'm not convinced it's needed, though...

BR, Julian