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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:52:09 +0100
Message-ID: <421B7F59.5080702@gmx.de>
To: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
CC: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 17:36 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>>So what do I do if a have a resource that accepts HTML form posts,
>>SOAP 
>>requests and ADDMEMBER-like semantics on the same URL?
> 
> 
> Either:
> 
> - Implement it very very carefully.

Hm. What exactly does that mean?

When POST is applied to that resource with a content type of 
"application/soap+xml", is it supposed to store the attached entity as a 
new resource (with content type "application/soap+xml", returning a 
Location response header with the URL of the new resource), or should it 
process it according to 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624>?

> or
> 
> - Change your server organization so that they use different URLs.
> 
>>>The only technical reason why a new method would be required in HTTP
>>>is if the message semantics were different.  For example, POST is
>>
>>Of course. That's why they are defined to be different from POST.
> 
> 
> But that's just the point - from the perspective of HTTP, the proposed
> ADDMEMBER is not fundamentally different from POST.

No, it's a subset, thus it can not be "fundamentelly different". That's 
on purpose.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:52:51 GMT

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