- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:30:32 +0200
- To: xiao@renci.org
- CC: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'Story Henry' <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 06.04.2010 02:17, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > ... > It is just the opposite from my standpoint. PATCH etc are more niceties > than necessities. I can define whatever the patching semantics in a > document type and GET/PUT it. Don't think needs a different vocabulary > to do it. To follow the PATCH practice, the HTTP verb will soon to explode. > ... - PATCH isn't really new, it already was mentioned in the Proposed Standard of HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2068), over 13 years ago. - You can't replace PATCH with PUT (to the same URI), as PUT sends a *replacement* representation. You *could* use POST instead, but in that case you'd need some other discovery mechanism to negotiate the actual format. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 15:31:09 UTC