Subject: [p2-semantics] Method Definitions - PATCH?

From: Ray Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:40:05 -0700

Last noob question of the day:

PATCH (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789) isn't listed as a spec defined
method.  What's the practice when it comes to additive RFCs like PATCH?

Thanks for your patience,
Ray

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:53:55 +0100

On 2012-01-19 20:40, Ray Polk wrote:
> PATCH (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789) isn't listed as a spec
> defined method.  What's the practice when it comes to additive RFCs like
> PATCH?
>

I'm not sure I understand the question.

New methods can be defined in separate specs, and have been.

The only new thing is that we now have a registry for them.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Ray Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:01:49 -0700

My question is:  should/does the HTTP spec absorb the most widely accepted
of these separately defined methods?

put another way:  should this group anoint the most widely used of the
methods from that registry as first class HTTP methods?

It seems like such a thing would help with adoption.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>wrote:

>> PATCH (http://tools.ietf.org/html/**rfc5789<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789>)
>> isn't listed as a spec

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:10:26 +0100

On 2012-01-19 21:01, Ray Polk wrote:
> My question is:  should/does the HTTP spec absorb the most widely
> accepted of these separately defined methods?

No.

> methods from that registry as first class HTTP methods?

There are no different classes.

> It seems like such a thing would help with adoption.

All we can tell people is that it doesn't matter where the method is 
defined.

Best regards, Julian