W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: PATCH draft

From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:33:32 -0500
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisad@messagingarchitects.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <37A7E07384666EF408C1B3B0@caldav.corp.apple.com>

Hi Lisa,

--On January 26, 2009 5:54:22 PM +0000 Lisa Dusseault 
<lisad@messagingarchitects.com> wrote:

> Julian helped me get another draft of this out that fixes his issues:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dusseault-http-patch-12
>
> I've had so many groups ask for this over the years that I'm embarrassed
> it has taken this long.  Please provide final comments shortly and I'll
> try to get it done.

Another comment: this draft defines the new 209 status code, yet it does 
not clearly explain under what circumstances a server would return the 
resulting resource data in the PATCH response. Is that something the server 
chooses to do unilaterally, or does the client get to ask the server to 
return the result?

Note that in CalDAV we have the situation now where pretty much every PUT 
of a resource has to be followed by a GET because the server is modifying 
the resource to account for scheduling actions that happen synchronously. 
It would be nice if there were a way for a client to ask the server to 
return the (now modified) resource in the PUT response with a 209 status 
code.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 16:36:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:01 GMT