- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:07:10 -0800
- To: "'Gregory J. Woodhouse'" <gjw@wnetc.com>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
This has been suggested by a number of people and I am starting to like it. The only real argument against it is that it makes it more difficult to parse requests. If a request is a copy I want to send it to program A but if it is a delete I want to send it to program B. However as I expect we will agree on a compromise to introduce new method names but allow for the use of post and depend on the application/webdav mime type, I think we can make everyone equally unhappy. Which, of course, is the definition of compromise. =) Yaron >-----Original Message----- >From: Gregory J. Woodhouse [SMTP:gjw@wnetc.com] >Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 1996 10:36 PM >To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org >Subject: media types > >I haven't said anything about this because I've been relecutant to >criticize a proposal on aesthetic grounds. but the idea of using separate >media types for each action really bothers me. Why don't we introduce a >single media type application/webdav and then use a parameter for the >specific action, as in > >application/webdav;action=delete > >--- >Gregory Woodhouse gjw@wnetc.com >home page: http://www.wnetc.com/home.html >resource page: http://www.wnetc.com/resource/ >
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 1996 14:07:33 UTC