- From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:05:43 -0700
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > the part talking about caching.. > > Why isn't the response to this method cacheable? It should be aligned > with POST, allowing for a 200 OK response which is cacheable, carrying > the modified entity. That should be fine. I wonder if it's worth the extra variation to allow the server to carry the entire modified entry. In some cases that would remove the whole point of supporting PATCH (allowing authoring of large files without constant uploading and downloading of entire file) so returning the body at least has to be optional. > > Why is Accept-Patch required. Or what is it that makes Accept > unsuitable here? > Accept is a request header. I assumed that it would be viewed in bad taste to use it as a response header. It might also in the long run be confusing -- the server might accept certain diff formats for PATCH, but accept other inputs for other purposes. Lisa
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 00:06:01 UTC