W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:23:32 -0700
Message-Id: <13860C7D-5473-4FED-B23B-461C067163BB@osafoundation.org>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

On Aug 1, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

> What am I missing?  What's the value in restricting the information
> that a response message can communicate?  What's wrong with just
> treating a response which communicates the state of the resource
> post-invocation, as a special case?

It's a different model, that's all.  I see PATCH as something that  
automated clients can use to control the state of server resources in  
a reasonably predictable manner, and signaled this by talking about  
caching and synching clients.  Your model, if I may characterize it,  
is closer to having the server in control than the client.

But you already have POST for server-controlled interactions leading  
the client to a new part of the application.  There's nothing  
restricting a javascript/forms application, AJAX or otherwise, from  
using POST to send a delta -- you don't need a standards committee  
for that!

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 19:23:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:31 UTC