W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: server applying PUT to a resource other than the request-URI

From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:13:59 -0400
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <4901ADF7.4080503@stickdog.com>

Yves Lafon (as “Yves”) wrote in
<http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.OSX.1.00.0810210932350.34078@nenpuar.ybpny>:

> When you know that /new.txt will generate new URIs, the correct method 
> to trigger [it] is POST and clearly not PUT.
> What's wrong with [the following scenario?]
> POST /give_me_a_new_URI
> => 303 See Other
>    Location: /new1.txt
> => PUT /new1.txt
> ...

In HTTP, a response whose status code is “303” fails to direct the user 
agent to issue a request whose method is “PUT”. RFC 2616 recommends that 
the user agent issue a request whose method is “GET” and whose 
Request-URI is the URI that appeared in the “Location” header field of 
the preceding response (see, for example, 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#status.303>). The latest 
(as of 2008-10-24) working draft of a revision to that part of RFC 2616 
allows, but does not mandate, a request whose method is “GET” (see, for 
example, 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-04.html#status.303>).


Specifications aside, user agents in the field will react to a status 
code of “303” with a request whose method is “GET”. Many operators of 
origin servers rely on such behavior, as do the people who direct their 
user agents to those origin servers.

-- 
Please do not include my address in public replies. I will read public 
replies on the list.
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 11:13:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:56 GMT