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

Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:26:39 +0100
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070811092639.GB5022@mail.shareable.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >Or... since patch formats are identified by mime media type, it  
> >would be
> >possible to use POST and allow the server to derive the intention  
> >of the
> >request from the media type.
> >
> >  POST /resource HTTP/1.1
> >  Content-Type: application/patch
> >
> >  {patch format}
> 
> If the server advertises its support for this Content-Type somewhere,  
> I could imagine this being sufficiently reliable.  I'm still a little  
> worried that the server might respond successfully to a POST request  
> without treating it as the client desires -- e.g. adding the request  
> entity to an Atom collection, submitting it to a HTTP "drop-box",  
> treating it as an alternative body for the resource, or one of the  
> many things POST might already be used for out there.

Quite a few resources out there will respond to PATCH by doing those
things anyway.  I've seen quite a few CGI scripts and libraries which
will respond to all requests as though they are POST, unless they are
GET/HEAD.

So you always have to know a bit about which resource you're PATCHing
or POSTing.

> I still prefer PATCH as a verb.

Makes sense to me.

-- Jamie
Received on Saturday, 11 August 2007 09:26:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT