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

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

From: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:48:26 +0000
Cc: thibault <thibault@miximum.fr>, public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <A1DEC4E7-75EB-4DB7-A05D-DB7C6574F0D2@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 13/12/2011, at 5:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-12-13 18:21, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote:
>> 
>> On 13/12/2011, at 5:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2011-12-13 17:54, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 13/12/2011, at 4:29 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2011-12-13 17:09, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Let's leave WebDAV alone. What is the use case we're discussing then if not how WebDAV servers return a status message for WebDAV client and full html representation for browsers over the same "Accept" header?
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> For instance, a UI that allows deleting resource both through a script-less form (where you need a new HTML page to be displayed as result), and a script-driven XHR based UI (where you only want to know success/fail). Note that in both cases the same user agent makes the request, but it has different requirements on the response type.
>>>> 
>>>> This is exactly where "Accept" should be used. Either the script should advertise it wants "text\plain" status message or maybe an "application\json" response.
>>> 
>>> The media type of the response isn't relevant here. "Accept" is the wrong header to negotiate on. Sorry.
>>> 
>> 
>> What are the "different requirements on response type" if not the media type of the response?
> 
> The media type of the response is orthogonal to what *kind* of response you want.
> 
> For a successful DELETE, all of the following a plausible:
> 
> - no response at all (204)
> 
> - a short status message ("deleted x and all depending resources")
> 
> - a representation of the collection the resource was removed from
> 
> - ...
> 
> None of these have anything to do with the *media type*.
> 

Yes they are all plausible responses, but do need they *ALL* need to be returned for each resource and same "Accept"? 

Personally i would map this as follows:

No Accept Header => 204

Accept: text\plain => short status message

Accept: text\html => representation of the collection


I understand this may not be possible for existing implementations of servers and clients. My stance is that if you are to perform client based content-negotiation you might as well just vary on User-Agent header, it amounts to the same thing and is a bad practice, IMO :)

i understand the need for some applications to have greater fidelity over the content of their representations however i believe this is better addressed through URIs.

> 
>> No, sorry. With all due respect, I am in complete disagreement with you here. Perhaps others can try different tacks to convince either one of us but this is where we left it last time and looks to be just one of our unresolvable understandings.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> > ...
>>> What needs to be negotiated is *what* is represented (a status message as opposed to current state as opposed to...), not the format.
>> 
>> I disagree with negotiating *what* is represented within a single format and that this is of relevance to form specification.
>> 
>> If the Preference token is not enough can you please state what additional problem must be addressed?
> 
> Oh, a Prefer token would be enough, we just need to specify it, and make sure that forms either send it automatically, or the author of the form can specify it.
> 
> Best regards, Julian


I have no problem with this at all, and (just quietly) you could even get it past me to get it automatically applied because i just don't care that much about something that can be ignored :)

Can we say this has been put to rest (pun intended)?

Thanks,
Cam
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 17:48:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 December 2011 17:49:00 GMT