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

Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:37:00 +0200
Message-ID: <46BF0CFC.90304@gmx.de>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> 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.

But at least OPTIONS/Allow will tell us whether the server has any idea 
what PATCH is, right?

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2007 13:37:20 GMT

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