Re: Byte range PATCH

Roberto Polli wrote ---



 >

> Content-Range might arise (e.g. you'd need to ensure that the server 
> support content-range in requests to avoid replacing an existing 
> resource with the "partial" representation conveyed in PUT). In 
> general RFC9110 is now more flexible on PUT + partial representations 
> than in the past.
 >



That's both an argument for, and against, deprecating PATCH. Just throwin' that out there because it's really only just occurred to me, and I'm surprisingly open to it.
 
 >
> content-ranges in the same request and it is simpler to just issue 
> multiple requests so that each can have its own representation 
> metadata managed directly via HTTP. 
 >



+1



In lieu of a document titled "multiple HTTP requests considered harmful" maybe I should write one titled "overloading HTTP requests considered harmful?" It's become so de rigueur to eliminate protocol round-trips that we're now entertaining it even on uploads where it matters not.



-Eric