- From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:16:00 +0200
- To: Felix Geisendörfer <felix@transloadit.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Put the offset: > > -- in the URI: > PATCH /foo?at=0020 HTTP/1.1 > -- in the Content-Type: > Content-Type: application/byteslice; at=0020 > > Thanks for the suggestions. The querystring might be the best option for something the web can use today. Actually, I think the content-type parameter is the winner. This doesn't require limiting the URI space/design. It does require access to the content-type both at the sending and receiving end; maybe I'm not aware of environments where that would be a problem. (It doesn't work for CoAP, but we have our own way of doing this.) > So if my concerns for portability were lifted, it seems that defining a PATCH format would be the best solution? Would this list still be the right place for carrying on this discussion, or would this be a separate RFC? I thought we just designed a complete PATCH format for resuming uploads. Aren't we done? Grüße, Carsten
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 16:16:33 UTC