W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2022

Re: Draft for Resumable Uploads

From: Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:39:32 -0700
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Austin William Wright" <aaa@bzfx.net>, "Guoye Zhang" <guoye_zhang@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1801b361c47.db210b21123021.8993280150669755607@zoho.com>

>> A resource has to exist first, before it can support PATCH. 
> Says who?

Common sense? Clearly-defined method semantics is part-and-parcel of a uniform interface. If we're going to muddy the waters by allowing partial PUT (or PUT no content to DELETE), and PATCH to create a primary resource (not sayin' PATCH can't result in a /previous-version resource being minted), then I guess HTML was right all along to only bother defining GET and POST in forms.


> Some origin servers support use of the Content-Range header field

> (Section 14.4) as a request modifier to perform a partial PUT, as

> described in Section 14.5.


Ugh. There's some wording above that, about how a service SHOULD use POST instead of PUT; I'd suggest (sometime in the future if PATCH is ever officially added) similar wording about SHOULD use PATCH. Some origin servers treat a zero-payload PUT as a removal request; similarly, some wording about SHOULD use DELETE could clarify.

I managed to watch a lot of golf this weekend while reviewing the latest HTTP drafts. Aside from the above, the only other editorial suggestion I have would be to add " Brotli Coding".

Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2022 00:39:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:07 UTC