Re: Byte range PATCH

Am 09.08.2022 um 10:15 schrieb Eric J Bowman:
> *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

Yes, there is at least one more (SEARCH).

> not being in the core spec? Can we revisit that decision? Or if not, can

No.

> 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?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe an example
would help.

>  >
>  > 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.

Again, it's unclear what you're after. Post an example.

>  >
>  > 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.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2022 09:20:42 UTC