- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:47:30 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Linus Walleij <triad@df.lth.se>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > ... > The design of the PATCH headers, and whether to use a MIME type in the > Content-Type field or whether to apply an instance manipulation, has > already been discussed in the HTTP Working Group mailing list somewhat, > so I'm cc'ing ietf-http-wg and bcc'ing ietf-types (in replying to > Martin's mail on ietf-types). > > I wasn't aware of any servers that actually allowed content negotiation > between static representations. I did think about this problem, but as > far as I know there's no standard way of telling the server to create a > new representation of an existing resource. What happens if you have a > resource that is in one Content-Type and you PUT a body that's another > Content-Type? I would think the correct action would normally be for > the server to replace the resource with one of a new Content-Type. How > do you create a new representation of an existing resource in a new > content type and how does that request differ from overwriting an > existing representation with the new content type? > > How does <http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri> > work? Is it a dynamic resource where the different output content types > are generated from XML by the server? Or is it really a static resource > that has several static stored representations of different types? If > it's the former, then there's no problem with PATCH as designed, as far > as I can see. If it's a static resource, then I'd need to know how > those different representations are created and modified, as I'm unaware > of any standard way of doing so. I agree that the issue of PATCHing a content-negotiated resource is identical to applying PUT to it. So whatever the answer for PUT is, it also should apply to PATCH. As far as I know, the current wisdom seems to disallow put on a content-negotiated resource, and to modify the "content" resource (Content-Location response header, see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#header.content-location>) instead. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 27 September 2004 16:48:14 UTC