- From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:33:32 -0500
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisad@messagingarchitects.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Lisa, --On January 26, 2009 5:54:22 PM +0000 Lisa Dusseault <lisad@messagingarchitects.com> wrote: > Julian helped me get another draft of this out that fixes his issues: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dusseault-http-patch-12 > > I've had so many groups ask for this over the years that I'm embarrassed > it has taken this long. Please provide final comments shortly and I'll > try to get it done. Another comment: this draft defines the new 209 status code, yet it does not clearly explain under what circumstances a server would return the resulting resource data in the PATCH response. Is that something the server chooses to do unilaterally, or does the client get to ask the server to return the result? Note that in CalDAV we have the situation now where pretty much every PUT of a resource has to be followed by a GET because the server is modifying the resource to account for scheduling actions that happen synchronously. It would be nice if there were a way for a client to ask the server to return the (now modified) resource in the PUT response with a 209 status code. -- Cyrus Daboo
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 16:36:14 UTC