W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Associated resource for PUT

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:16:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4FFD2845.8050604@gmx.de>
To: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-07-11 01:54, Robert Brewer wrote:
> ...
> Yes, the server also needs to establish a base URI for POST entities. It's just not as clear-cut what that base should be for POST; for example, lots of resources have been designed as a collection to which one POSTs an item which then exists at a different URL chosen by the server. So the option of using the Request-URI isn't as obvious as it is for PUT, and it seems more natural to assume the server must decide and describe some application-specific default.
>
> The base URI of a GET response is so obviously the Request-URI, it's a bit surprising that for some reason that hasn't been as obvious for the base URI of a PUT request, given their semantic symmetry. Is there any use case (or even any facility) to have the base URI of a PUT request be some other URI? Can you return 201 Created with a Location of some other URI for PUT? If not, then it's a bit misleading to say "An HTTP request representation is always associated with an anonymous resource."
> ...

Again, the difference is that the text describes the properties of the 
message. Until the PUT has succeeded we can't say what the associated 
resource is.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 07:17:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 July 2012 07:17:09 GMT