W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: [Ietf-caldav] [Fwd: draft-reschke-http-addmember-00]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:48:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4215033B.3000206@gmx.de>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
CC: algermissen@acm.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Jamie Lokier wrote:
>  ...
> And so, for ADDMEMBER to be useful, you need to specify it more
> tightly than "PUT except the created resource URI is selected
> differently".
> 
> If you do that, it makes sense.  If you don't, then ADDMEMBER is no
> different from POST.
> ...

OK, to summarize: your point is that PUT doesn't have the strict 
semantics (that I claim it has). Let's just agree that we disagree here.

> That said, even if you do specify ADDMEMBER more tightly, I still
> don't see how the difference would benefit you.  You say it could be
> useful to an intermediary, but can you give a plausible example?

Did I?

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 20:49:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:39 GMT