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

Re: PATCH Draft

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:45:31 +0200
Message-Id: <9138E1F7-A7FA-4BA9-96EB-2DBDF47EF8AC@greenbytes.de>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>

Am 26.06.2007 um 00:26 schrieb Henrik Nordstrom:

> mån 2007-06-25 klockan 22:27 +0200 skrev Stefan Eissing:
>> Personally, I think this is not helpful. PATCH cannot require servers
>> to support such a format. For every format it is trivial to think of
>> an application where it does not make sense.
> Sure, but for interoperability it helps a lot if there is at least one
> text and one binary format that most clients can expect to be  
> supported
> on most servers, therefore one or two recommendations on formats to  
> use
> helps a lot.

Yes and no. I agree that *if* we had such document type formats,  
intellectual property free, it would help PATCH to reference them as  

But it seems that these formats need to be invented first, or at  
least defined, and that takes precious time. We have *now* http  
applications like AtomPub and Web3S which could make use of PATCH.  
So, instead of inventing their own methods or twisting PUT, I think  
everyone is better served with a well defined PATCH without  
recommended formats than no PATCH at all.

It worked for GET, PUT and POST.


Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 07:45:37 UTC

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