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

Re: Idempotent partial updates

From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:46:03 +0100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <833DA77D-4825-4B6D-8E59-06B30EC4A7A3@tzi.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On Feb 28, 2012, at 20:54, Roy T. Fielding 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.  [...]
> Any software that uses Content-Range in PUT requests is BROKEN.

Thanks, that was part of the input I was looking for.

For the other part of discussion we are having (PATCH vs. idempotence), it would be useful to know what specifically broke when people started using PUT for partial updates.  In particular, it would be good to know if the same breakage occurs with an idempotent version of PATCH.

Gre, Carsten
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 17:46:39 GMT

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