Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support XML Patch #414

Closed
csarven opened this issue Jul 6, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

Support XML Patch #414

csarven opened this issue Jul 6, 2016 · 4 comments
Labels
feature revisit Not a current priority, reconsider later

Comments

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Jul 6, 2016

Using an implementation of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7351 and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5261 is one way to get HTTP PATCH working for text/html and application/xhtml+xml (essentially for HTML+RDFa). When this is implemented, application/xml-patch+xml should appear in Accept-Patch. See also: #410

@csarven csarven changed the title Implement XML Patch Support XML Patch Jul 7, 2016
@RubenVerborgh RubenVerborgh added feature revisit Not a current priority, reconsider later labels Jul 19, 2018
@csarven
Copy link
Member Author

csarven commented Dec 6, 2018

@RubenVerborgh Would you mind reopening this?

Some documentation on why it is deemed to be a feature would be useful. application/sparql-update wasn't a feature as I recall it - in fact, it was literally made-up for something to work for PATCH. It'd be great to make PATCH work for any RDF syntax.

What's the ETA on "revisit"?

@RubenVerborgh
Copy link
Contributor

What's the ETA on "revisit"?

That's up to the community. If someone wants to invest resources in this, let's reopen to indicate this issue is active.

For now, it is on "revisit" (= "paused") state because we have no one working on this.

@akuckartz
Copy link

Most people probably think the closed state indicates that nothing is to be done.

@RubenVerborgh
Copy link
Contributor

We're using it differently indeed, hence the "revisit" label.

We (= maintainers of his repo) didn't think it was meaningful to leave issues open that we cannot realistically get to within 6 months. That way, all the "open" issues reflect current problems and current work.

If anyone wants to get to those issues sooner, please do, that would be awesome.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature revisit Not a current priority, reconsider later
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants