- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:52:09 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, www-tag@w3.org
> Which makes sense; HTTP's lack of support for mandatory extensions > makes > deploying these kinds of extensions difficult. So the options seem to > be; > > - PATCH > - M-PUT (RFC 2774) + RFC 3229 > - a PUT binding for SOAP + RFC 3229 > > FWIW, if there was anything for the TAG to consider here, it might be > to > document some best practices for deploying various forms of HTTP > extensions and to help protocol developers understand the tradeoffs. PATCH was part of the original HTTP/1.1 proposal. It was removed only due to lack of implementation experience. As far as I am concerned, it is already part of HTTP -- just not standardized yet. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2004 18:52:29 UTC