W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Follow-up about PUT and DELETE in form methods

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:04:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE76978.3000603@gmx.de>
To: Mirko Gustony <mirko.gustony@gmail.com>
CC: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>, thibault <thibault@miximum.fr>, public-html-comments@w3.org
On 2011-12-13 15:23, Mirko Gustony wrote:
> Hello,
>
> excuse me but,
>
> 2011/12/13 Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>:
>>> I think that is quite definitely Out Of Scope. If there needs to be
>>> different content for the same format this should be a different URI.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. If you need separate URIs to make this work, something is wrong.
>
> from my reading of [1] (and several other sources on that) Cameron
> seems to be right. Different content (not different representation)
> means different document and therefor different URI.

We're talking about a single resource (thus one URI), that gets a DELETE 
request.

Different clients have different expectations on the response payload 
they get for a successful DELETE, though. Most non-HTML clients do not 
care about any additional information, so sending more than a status 
message is a waste of bits.

Note that HTTP says:

"A successful response SHOULD be 200 (OK) if the response includes an 
entity describing the status, 202 (Accepted) if the action has not yet 
been enacted, or 204 (No Content) if the action has been enacted but the 
response does not include an entity." -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.9.7>

So you can send a "status" page, but assuming that a server always will 
do that would be incorrect because most clients will not need it.

> I for one would welcome a solution for bringing RESTful webservices to
> HTML forms without hacks or Javascript.
> ...

Yes, but please let's not replace one kind of hack with a different kind 
of hack.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 15:05:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 December 2011 15:05:06 GMT