HTTP Patch proposal

• From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
• Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:43:34 +0100
• To: www-tag@w3.org
• Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040427113643.02ba2638@127.0.0.1>

I just noticed this:
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-01.txt

[[
    Several applications extending HTTP require a feature to do partial
    resource modification.  Existing HTTP functionality only allows a
    complete replacement of a document. This proposal adds a new HTTP
    method, PATCH, to modify an existing HTTP resource.
]]

And this is a key indicator of its function:
[[
    The PATCH request MUST have a body.  It MUST include the Content-Type
    header with a value indicating what the body type is.  It MUST be a
    format that has the semantics of defining a change to an existing
    document (such as gdiff).
]]

I don't think this poses any fundamental problems for Web architecture, but 
the only reason I can see for not using POST is this:
[[
    The PATCH request is subject to access control, which in turn may
    require authentication.  The PATCH request SHOULD be subject to the
    same access control permissions as the PUT request.
]]

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2004 06:45:24 UTC