Cyrus Daboo wrote: > Hi James, > > --On June 25, 2007 1:10:04 PM -0700 James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-07.txt > >> Comments? Concerns? > > As has been indicated PATCH will likely be used by WebDAV servers. > Therefore I think it would be handy to have a "WebDAV Considerations" > section that describes any issue specific to WebDAV. In particular the > interaction with WebDAV ACL ought to be clarified (basically that use of > PATCH will be tied to the same ACLs that enable use of PUT - assuming > that we allow PATCH to create a new resource as well as modify an > existing one). It might also be useful to define a > "DAV:supported-patch-formats" property to allow the patch formats > supported by a particular resource to be enumerated. Also, is it > meaningful to PATCH a collection? e.g. could I PATCH a new collection > and effectively create all the resources within that collection all in > one go? Or could it be used to PATCH specific resources in the > collection all in one go? > I can understand why this would be desirable. I, however, am nowhere near qualified to discuss any reasonable considerations for WebDAV. Regarding the "DAV:supported-patch-formats" suggestion, why wouldn't the Accept-Patch response header be enough? - JamesReceived on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 17:24:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:27 GMT