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

Re: Draft for Resumable Uploads

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:16:34 +0200
Message-ID: <19e5bde9-9f53-60c2-28a1-27c745abee2d@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 12.04.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Roy T. Fielding:
>> On Apr 11, 2022, at 10:45 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de
>> <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 12.04.2022 um 02:39 schrieb Eric J Bowman:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> 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.
>> > ...
>>
>> Well. You are in disagreement with the spec.
>>
>> The issue here being that "existence" of a resource is somewhat hard to
>> define.
>
> I've defined this before. A resource is a mapping of a URI to value over
> time,
> and thus always exists as a function because there is no distinction between
> an origin server that doesn't exist, a resource that is not yet mapped
> by the
> origin server (but could be), or the network being down. For example,
> OPTIONS can target a resource that has no representation.
> ....

Thanks for the explanation, Roy and +1 on the details.

(I was actually aware of the resource definition, but my experience is
that when I say "there is no such thing as an non-existing resource",
they tune out and walk away).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2022 07:16:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 13 April 2022 07:16:49 UTC