On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:02:46PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > This feature of HTTP is already defined as > > POST + media-type ==> 201 + location I was thinking the same thing Roy, but a new method would have the advantage of improved visibility; an intermediary observing a POST/201 interaction wouldn't see anything in the POST request which licensed it to interpret that request as an attempt to store state, whereas a new method would provide exactly that license. Had HTTP a means for extending a method to declare this additional expectation (as described in the draft's A.3 using RFC 2774), I agree that POST + extension would be appropriate. > The media type is more than > sufficient to distinguish this action from any other type of > misdirected POST, How so? AFAICT, the media type could be anything. Did I miss something in the I-D? But even if there was such a limitation, that seems a bit kludgy to me; could such an assumption be expected to hold for even the foreseeable future? I wouldn't have thought so. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.caReceived on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 12:54:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:23 GMT