Open reschke opened 2 weeks ago
We do have the same issue with PATCH:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6902 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7386
Didn't we also define "application/json" as patch format? If so, where?
For me, the question is whether we need to say anything. We say nothing much about POST, even for application/x-url-form-encoded and multipart/form-data. Those have a sort-of default semantic, but ultimately the meaning of parameters take on a meaning defined by the resource itself. Same for QUERY, or at least that is what I had always assumed.
That registry is the media type registry - each media type definition needs to define its semantics under applicable methods.
Aha, I read that first as if that was the cause already (which is not the case). Are you suggesting to add that over there? That mught be a hard sell...
How would a reader of the RFCs actually find out what the semantics of a given media type is for QUERY (that is, where it is defined)? Do we need a registry?