From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#30154: [PATCH] web: Add http-patch. Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:22:02 -0500 Message-ID: <87r2qckxyd.fsf@netris.org> References: <20180118094310.11658-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1517009001 30124 195.159.176.226 (26 Jan 2018 23:23:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:23:21 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: 30154@debbugs.gnu.org To: Arun Isaac Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 27 00:23:16 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1efDKu-00074T-1z for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 00:23:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34205 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1efDMu-0000Hy-NG for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:25:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38445) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1efDMo-0000HL-8I for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:25:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1efDMk-0000rc-8N for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:25:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:36240) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1efDMk-0000rX-4t for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:25:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1efDMj-0008BP-VW for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:25:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Mark H Weaver Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:25:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 30154 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 30154-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B30154.151700908231428 (code B ref 30154); Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:25:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 30154) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Jan 2018 23:24:42 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44137 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1efDMQ-0008Aq-NG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:24:42 -0500 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:43262) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1efDMO-0008Aa-0N for 30154@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:24:40 -0500 Original-Received: from turntable.mit.edu ([18.18.160.11] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1efDMH-00048s-P0; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:24:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180118094310.11658-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> (Arun Isaac's message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:13:10 +0530") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-guile" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:8983 Archived-At: Hi Arun, Arun Isaac writes: > * module/web/client.scm (http-patch): New HTTP verb. I hadn't heard of the PATCH method in HTTP, so I looked into it a bit. It's not listed as a valid method verb in either RFC 7231 (from 2014) or RFC 2616 (from 1999). However, I do see it mentioned briefly in the "Changes from RFC 2068" section of RFC 2616, which states: The PATCH, LINK, UNLINK methods were defined but not commonly implemented in previous versions of this specification. See RFC 2068. Since PATCH was removed from HTTP over 18 years ago, and is clearly not valid HTTP/1.1, I wonder if it makes sense to add this. Do you have a use case where you need it? Mark