- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:37:00 +0200
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Jamie Lokier wrote: >> 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. But at least OPTIONS/Allow will tell us whether the server has any idea what PATCH is, right? > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2007 13:37:20 UTC