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

Re: A proposal for clarification to section 4.3 HTTP POST

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:07:51 -0700
Message-ID: <514DE167.7070309@berkeley.edu>
To: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
CC: public-ldp@w3.org
hello cody.

On 2013-03-23 9:42 , Cody Burleson wrote:
> I just think we would do well to try to make less assumptions on the
> reader's knowledge and provide brief hints that give a little
> confirmation to what the reader is probably already assuming (for comfort).
> So, in this case, now that I've clarified that we're referring to the
> HTTP/1.1 spec, I summarize the most salient point(s) from there so that
> it is not necessary to do a cross-check.
> "Ah, yup... ok... POST for create... maybe also PUT...".

it's a valid point that many look at HTTP methods in terms of "mapping" 
them to CRUD operations. however, i think it might be good to neither 
confirm nor reject this world view. these are simply two different 
things to talk about. we expose LDP interactions through HTTP 
interactions. when they are idempotent and safe, we use GET. when they 
are idempotent but not safe, we use PUT or DELETE. when they are neither 
safe nor idempotent, we use POST or PATCH (maybe). that's it, that's 
what HTTP defines, and we should stick to that story, and not reinforce 
the misguided "CRUD understanding" of HTTP.

cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Saturday, 23 March 2013 17:08:37 UTC

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