W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: Is APPEND really needed ?

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:29:22 -0700
Message-Id: <033F7066-6D79-442B-940B-44E3BBF89C49@osafoundation.org>
Cc: edgar@edgarschwarz.de, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I agree with this.  One could even define a custom "delta format" (an  
algorithm for applying a patch) that only did appending, use it with  
PATCH, and then one would have the simplest way of achieving APPEND  
without duplicate specification.

Lisa

On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> edgar@edgarschwarz.de schrieb:
>> ...
>> I will have to implement one method less in my server and also the  
>> RFC will
>> be shorter without APPEND. There will only be a lot of stuff just  
>> duplicated.
>> This said I'm very happy to see that a standard for sending diffs  
>> is discussed
>> again. Because it really doesn't make sense to send a complete big  
>> document
>> to a DeltaV server if you only correct a single letter typo :-)
>> ...
>
> Maybe it should also be mentioned that that lot's of people are  
> really uneasy about defining new HTTP methods. PATCH has the nice  
> property that it's not really new, it just needed a proper  
> definition (so keep in mind that if you call something PATCH, it  
> really should be identical or similar to what already has been  
> described in <http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/history/draft- 
> ietf-http-v11-spec-01.txt>.
>
> APPEND doesn't have this property. Furthermore, it's just a  
> "convenience  method", because you can alway define a PATCH request  
> that does exactly the same.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 00:29:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT