W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: Distributed Authoring Proposals

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 12:02:15 -0800
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485026B7229@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>, masinter@parc.xerox.com
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
But how do you feel about PUT w/the Source header? That solves the
message/external-body problem.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Roy T. Fielding [SMTP:fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU]
> Sent:	Friday, March 21, 1997 10:39 AM
> To:	masinter@parc.xerox.com
> Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: Distributed Authoring Proposals 
> >I suggest considering eliminating COPY and instead using
> >PUT, but when the value being PUT is Content-Type:
> >message/external-body, then the server can copy the data
> >from the original source.
> I disagree.  Doing a PUT of a message/external-body means you want
> to create or replace a resource that consists of a
> message/external-body.
> The same problem applies with using multipart/related to imply a
> different
> action than that requested by the method.
> Not surprisingly, I prefer COPY for asking the server to perform a
> copy,
> and the PATCH method for asking the server to perform a partial
> update.
> PATCH had the additional benefit that it was independent of
> content-type,
> and thus I wouldn't have to argue with Fabio about VTML or the MIME
> folks
> about multipart/mixed+message/partial or any number of other data
> formats
> that are great for some tasks and not for others.
> These and other failed attempts at standardizing WEBDAV functionality
> within HTTP can be seen in 
> http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/history/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-
> 01.html
> .....Roy
Received on Friday, 21 March 1997 15:02:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:10 UTC