W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: PUT, side effects and 201 Created?

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:53:08 -0400
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0604031953r23bd2fa3t7441223cacdac644@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

On 4/3/06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> How is it more constraining to allow responses other than 201?

It's not more constraining along that axis, sure, and in fact I've
always wondered why the requirement wasn't a SHOULD rather than a
MUST... which I think would address your issue.

> This
> effectively forces the server to inform the client of the location of
> *any* resource that happens to be created by a PUT, whether or not
> that is useful or relevant information.
> At the end of the day, this isn't really a testable requirement, so
> it's not a big deal; was just wondering what was in people's minds
> when this was written.

Can't help you there 8-)

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 02:53:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:39 UTC