W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Idempotent partial updates

From: Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:28:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CANqiZJa5kDboddXWTaz=p=PitRw3=_n-7opGSLHc7_H1a-Bfjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure we are communicating.
>>
>> In the web-as-deployed, partial updates often use the PUT method.
>
> In the Web as defined, standardized, and deployed, those partial
> updates using the PUT method are not interoperable with standard
> HTTP/1.x servers.

Please could you be more specific

> That has been known since the idea was first
> brought up and has not changed since then.  We could not make
> non-compatible changes to an existing method in 1996, nor 1999,
> nor can we do so now in 2012.

The inference here being there is infrastructure which relies on PUT
requests being non-partial _across the whole of the web_? Do you have
some examples?

> There is no such thing as partial updates using PUT.

Maybe in a theoretical sense, but there are clients and servers
interacting this way on the web right now. Everything seems to be
going OK despite this.

Cheers,
Mike
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 17:29:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:56 GMT