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

Re: PATCH Draft

From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:05:43 -0700
Message-Id: <4E5F0BC2-DAAB-4DAC-ABAC-F56E6E17C7EC@commerce.net>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>

On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> 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.

That should be fine.  I wonder if it's worth the extra variation to  
allow the server to carry the entire modified entry.  In some cases  
that would remove the whole point of supporting PATCH (allowing  
authoring of large files without constant uploading and downloading  
of entire file) so returning the body at least has to be optional.

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

Accept is a request header.  I assumed that it would be viewed in bad  
taste to use it as a response header.  It might also in the long run  
be confusing -- the server might accept certain diff formats for  
PATCH, but accept other inputs for other purposes.

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 00:06:01 UTC

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