- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:44:56 +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: > Julian Reschke 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? > > If you're lucky. If you're not lucky, the server will treat OPTIONS > like GET or POST, or something else. In which case it won't return "Allow: PATCH", right? > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2007 16:45:08 UTC