Re: [Ietf-caldav] [Fwd: draft-reschke-http-addmember-00]

On Feb 22, 2005, at 5:37 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
> Ah, so you're saying that ADDMEMBER isn't uniform?

Actually, no, I was saying that ADDMEMBER as currently defined
is identical to POST.  Julian said that it wasn't identical because
his client would be able to expect one semantic, namely that a
201 result would cause the webdav collection to contain a new
member with the given media type.  That implies an additional
requirement that the target be a webdav collection, which isn't
uniform at all.

> Can you give an example of a resource
> for which ADDMEMBER wouldn't make sense?

No, which is why it is POST by any other name.

....Roy

Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 19:53:00 UTC