W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: PATCH Draft

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:35:59 +0200
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Message-Id: <1182810959.4708.72.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
mån 2007-06-25 klockan 13:10 -0700 skrev James M Snell:

> many of the concerns that had been raised.  The updated draft posted today:
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-07.txt

2.1  PATCH Method

the part talking about caching..

Why isn't the response to this method cacheable? It should be aligned
with POST, allowing for a 200 OK response which is cacheable, carrying
the modified entity.

Remember, HTTP caching is about how caches should react on later
GET/HEAD requests for the same resource. If the response to PATCH
carries the modified entity in the same manner as a GET would then it
should be allowed to cache that.

2.3 Advertising Support in OPTIONS

Why is Accept-Patch required. Or what is it that makes Accept unsuitable here?


Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 22:36:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC