W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2013

Re: A modest attempt to re-open ISSUE-20

From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:14:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE35Vmxj7Z-BMnX8B5c49Q7X1h9MYD+b8oOaBT4vxTEV61aCuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Cc: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
Eric,

that logic leaves you with POST only, not PUT. And POST functions
mostly as append operation, while PUT clearly is better suited for
resource creation.

  [...]
  o  Extending a database through an append operation
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-17#section-6.5

Martynas

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> hello martynas.
>
>
> On 2013-03-14 9:48 , Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>>
>> am I not reading the HTTP spec right then?
>>     Proper interpretation of a PUT request presumes that the user agent
>>     knows what target resource is desired.  A service that is intended to
>>     select a proper URI on behalf of the client, after receiving a state-
>>     changing request, SHOULD be implemented using the POST method rather
>>     than PUT.
>
>
> i don't know how you're reading that, but it clearly says the method
> "presumes that the user agent knows what target resource is desired." in the
> case of a newly created resource, this identifier is not yet known. creating
> it is under control of the server, so the client doesn't know this URI.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 17:15:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:10 UTC