Re: Byte range PATCH

Am 09.08.2022 um 08:03 schrieb Eric J Bowman:
>  >
>  > PATCH is not causing anyone any trouble.
>  >
>
> Then why is it the redheaded stepchild of HTTP methods, defined by its
> own RFC as opposed to being part of the core protocol?

BS. It started as standalone RFC as that is the way to define new
methods. It's an extensibility point. It wasn't included in later
revisions of the core specs because there simply was no need to.

> ... > Sort of. RFC 5789 included "resource creation" sure. But do you have any
> examples of PATCH being used that way in the wild? I can't help but

It would require a media type definition that supports that.

> wonder if there isn't a good reason it took 12 years for this issue to
> come up. Like maybe the RFC got it wrong? PATCH's "update" semantics are
> understood, and (perhaps widely) used as intended.

It didn't take 12 years. It was discussed when PATCH was defined.

> Creation, not so much! Never occurred to me that it would be
> controversial, to think that updating something pre-assumes its
> existence, and should report an error otherwise. Creation via PATCH
> falls under my definition of "silent error correction" which makes it a
> "bad thing" in the HTTP universe.
>
> -Eric

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2022 06:13:15 UTC