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

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:37:58 -0500
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050222133758.GD4504@markbaker.ca>

On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:21:05AM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >IMO, it's because there are advantages to having messages which reflect
> >the expectations of their sender.
> 
> Umm, think about that sentence and you will find it has no content.
> Messages reflect the instruction of the sender.  POST does that.
>
> What you are really saying is that there are advantages to the
> client knowing the nature of a resource,
[lots of other stuff that I agree with snipped]

Ah, so you're saying that ADDMEMBER isn't uniform?  Sorry, I wasn't
able to extract that from your other messages.  But can you please
explain your reasoning behind that belief?  From my POV, the draft
defines ADDMEMBER semantics to be a small, (seemingly) uniform
adjustment upon PUT semantics.  Can you give an example of a resource
for which ADDMEMBER wouldn't make sense?

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 13:38:38 GMT

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