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

Re: PATCH and WebDAV, was Re: PATCH Draft

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:23:58 -0700
Message-ID: <46814BAE.5040108@gmail.com>
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

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?

- James
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 17:24:04 UTC

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