W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: Distributed Authoring Proposals

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 01:22:48 PST
Message-ID: <3333A4E8.7689@parc.xerox.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >I suggest considering eliminating COPY and instead using
> >PUT, but when the value being PUT is Content-Type:
> >message/external-body, then the server can copy the data
> >from the original source.
> I disagree.  Doing a PUT of a message/external-body means you want
> to create or replace a resource that consists of a message/external-body.
> The same problem applies with using multipart/related to imply a different
> action than that requested by the method.
> Not surprisingly, I prefer COPY for asking the server to perform a copy,
> and the PATCH method for asking the server to perform a partial update.
> PATCH had the additional benefit that it was independent of content-type,
> and thus I wouldn't have to argue with Fabio about VTML or the MIME folks
> about multipart/mixed+message/partial or any number of other data formats
> that are great for some tasks and not for others.
> These and other failed attempts at standardizing WEBDAV functionality
> within HTTP can be seen in
> http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/history/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-01.html
> .....Roy

I think in MIME that "message" and "multipart" are treated specially.
They're not just "application", they're media type where the sender
intends for the recipient to actually unwrap the message. I don't think
you should *ever* store something as "multpart". Rather, a content
negotiated resource is "multpart/alternative", message/http is just
another wrapper around the HTTP message as if the wrapper weren't there,

Received on Saturday, 22 March 1997 04:57:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:15 UTC