- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:01:25 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Justin Chapweske <justin@chapweske.com>
Or a COPY followed by a PATCH. Good point. I agree. Who should I acknowledge for the original definition of PATCH? Lisa On Apr 28, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> 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 > > http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/history/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec > -01.txt > > ....Roy >
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:01:36 UTC