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

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

From: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:15:57 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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>
Message-Id: <1109110557.6051.49.camel@sukothai.pingtel.com>

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 19:52 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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?

It means that that resource should have a well defined way of
determining what it is being asked to do for any given request.
Personally, I would choose the second alternative - use different URLs
for those different purposes, but...

> 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>?

That W3C spec does not mandate that anything in particular be done with
a request body with that mime type.  It in no way requires that a
request body with that mime type invoke a SOAP operation or prevents a
given URL from treating that body as an object to be stored.
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 22:15:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC