Re: Byte range PATCH

> On Aug 8, 2022, at 19:54, Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

PATCH is not causing anyone any trouble.

> 
> >
> > 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.

This proposal does not "overload” anything. If anything, I’m writing this to avoid overloading PUT or POST with semantics that may be misunderstood by origin servers.

The PATCH semantics, by contrast, are being used exactly as intended and understood.

Thanks,

Austin.