- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:15:53 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > ... > If I had a better memory, I wouldn't have circular arguments like this. > Argh. Yeah, Content-Type is universally used to indicate the content of > the payload, and shouldn't be used to change the Content-Type of the > resource being patched. > ... s/shouldn't/can't/ > There is a minor problem of Content-Language, I think the other > Content-* headers are even more irrelevant. How many systems out there > actually save the Content-Language provided by the client in a PUT? And Some, at least (I wrote parts of one). > for those systems, is the only way to change the Content-Language to > issue another whole PUT? What would those systems want a PATCH with a > Content-Language to mean -- (1) "This is the new Content-Language for > the resource, please save it" or (2) "This is the language of the PATCH > payload so it's irrelevant, throw it away" or (3) illegal. If *editing* of existing entity headers is needed, we *could* define a specific format (+ mime type) for it. So far, I'm not convinced it's needed, though... BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 22 December 2008 17:16:43 UTC