W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: PATCH thoughts...

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:51:52 -0700
Cc: Justin Chapweske <justin@chapweske.com>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Message-Id: <A43F849A-9966-11D8-9E30-000393753936@gbiv.com>

> Would it solve all these use cases if we provided a "Source: <url>"  
> header?  The job of the server is then to take the Source resource,  
> apply the patch body, and save it at the destination (the request  
> URI).  I'd probably define this so that if the Source header were  
> missing, then the Request URI is both the source and the destination.
> Would anybody else find this useful?

No, I would find it actively harmful.  The same can be accomplished
by a MOVE followed by a PATCH without introducing unnecessary
complexity and without requiring servers that have no interest in
that feature to embed client code just to support it.

Please note that PATCH was originally defined in section 8.6 of


Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:00:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:24 UTC