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 19:59:41 +0000
Message-ID: <CANqiZJaUUou3-YHqRMLUdCJB55fHHoapv+pCW=2KA0tof8vRNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-02-29 20:09, Mike Kelly wrote:
>> Sites can detect whether it is partial vs replace the same way they
>> distinguish between the intent of a POST requests - it depends on the
>> resource in question.
>
>
> The *site* can't know, unless sender and receiver are closely coupled. In
> which case you can of course do what you want, but don't claim that this is
> HTTP as specified.
>

Right, it is closely coupled - as is any other interaction driven by
shared understanding between the client and the server. Not everything
needs, or can be, visible on the network and is better off dealt with
via shared understanding between client and server. What is it about
the non-partial'ness of PUT that requires it to be made visible by
HTTP across the web as a whole?

Cheers,
Mike
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 20:00:09 GMT

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