Re: Byte range PATCH

Julian Reschke wrote ---

 
 >
> 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.
 >



Oh, was that the reason? I didn't know (or remember). But it's still an oddball isn't it? Are there any other standalone RFCs which define a single HTTP method? Did the evolution of partial PUT result from PATCH not being in the core spec? Can we revisit that decision? Or if not, can we revisit the definition of PATCH to decouple it from applying to a single target resource, to allow patch files to be first-class resources in their own right?
 
>
> It would require a media type definition that supports that.
 >



Right. But I don't see any such media type defined after a very long period of time in WWW years. I can't publish a media type definition that does what I want, because it's disallowed by the RFC. So I hope the definition of PATCH isn't set in stone.

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

 >



Discussed but not implemented, therefore dubious, as far as standardization goes. Austin's work is really the first effort I've seen in that regard, so I'd rather not handwave around the issue because it dates back over a decade.



Maybe I'm wrong, hence all the question marks.



-Eric