- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:26:39 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >Or... since patch formats are identified by mime media type, it
> >would be
> >possible to use POST and allow the server to derive the intention
> >of the
> >request from the media type.
> >
> > POST /resource HTTP/1.1
> > Content-Type: application/patch
> >
> > {patch format}
>
> If the server advertises its support for this Content-Type somewhere,
> I could imagine this being sufficiently reliable. I'm still a little
> worried that the server might respond successfully to a POST request
> without treating it as the client desires -- e.g. adding the request
> entity to an Atom collection, submitting it to a HTTP "drop-box",
> treating it as an alternative body for the resource, or one of the
> many things POST might already be used for out there.
Quite a few resources out there will respond to PATCH by doing those
things anyway. I've seen quite a few CGI scripts and libraries which
will respond to all requests as though they are POST, unless they are
GET/HEAD.
So you always have to know a bit about which resource you're PATCHing
or POSTing.
> I still prefer PATCH as a verb.
Makes sense to me.
-- Jamie
Received on Saturday, 11 August 2007 09:26:52 UTC