- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:52:03 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@osafoundation.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Aug 1, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > Sure, but if the server wants to signal a successful PATCH, then it's > stuck with 2xx. > > What if, for example, a server wanted to respond to a successful PATCH > attempt with a document which revealed (via hyperlinks) a new part of > the application? I've done this with both PUT and POST (mostly POST) > in several applications I've developed, so can attest to its utility. > > 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? Do you mean indicated by 200 and (Content-Location == Request-URI)? Or a new 2xx status code that specifically says the enclosed response entity is as if it were a response to GET on the new state? I would prefer a new response code at this point, since experience has shown that content-location is difficult to reconstruct in the presence of intermediaries. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 19:52:08 UTC