W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Issue i17 (Revise description of the POST method)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:10:31 +0200
Message-ID: <46632E47.6050504@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

I just realized that by resolving issue i17 
(<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i17>) by 
relaxing the semantics of POST, we may have broken the definition of 
PUT, which says 
(http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02.html#rfc.section.9.6.p.3>):

"The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is 
reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a POST 
request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed entity. 
That resource might be a data-accepting process, a gateway to some other 
protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In contrast, 
the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with the request 
-- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server MUST NOT 
attempt to apply the request to some other resource. If the server 
desires that the request be applied to a different URI, it MUST send a 
301 (Moved Permanently) response; the user agent MAY then make its own 
decision regarding whether or not to redirect the request."

Now that the spec basically specifies how POST is used in the wild, is 
the comparison with POST in the definition of PUT still correct?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 3 June 2007 21:10:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:10 GMT