W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Updated Patch

From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:30:10 -0500
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <303E8EA48C84CB0F62691DC4@socrates.local>

Hi Lisa,

--On December 22, 2008 9:03:02 AM -0800 Lisa Dusseault 
<lisa@osafoundation.org> wrote:

> There is a minor problem of Content-Language, I think the other Content-*
> headers are even more irrelevant.  How many systems out there actually
> save the Content-Language provided by the client in a PUT?  And for those
> systems, is the only way to change the Content-Language to issue another
> whole PUT?  What would those systems want a PATCH with a Content-Language
> to mean -- (1) "This is the new Content-Language for the resource, please
> save it" or (2) "This is the language of the PATCH payload so it's
> irrelevant, throw it away" or (3) illegal.

Well Content-Language is supposed to map to the DAV:getcontentlanguage 
property. So if a server does save it, clients have a way to change it 
directly via PROPPATCH.

So as Julian noted the Content-* on the PATCH should apply only to the 
PATCH request data - they should not be used to change the properties on 
the resource being PATCH's. Instead clients can use PROPPATCH to do that. 
Which begs the question as to whether there is a need to have an atomic 
"patch the body and properties" operation i.e. atomic PATCH + PROPPATCH. I 
guess with LOCK you could do that. The alternative is to specify a patch 
format that allows for patching the body and updating properties at the 
same time.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo
Received on Monday, 22 December 2008 20:31:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:58 GMT