On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Jose Kahan wrote: >Charles, > >Have you read the new Annotea draft protocol [1]? This is not clear >from your message. Yes. >It actually documents what you're proposing and Appendix B [2] explains >why we were using POST. In a previous message we asked developers >for feedback wrt making PUT the prefered practice and dropping >altogether POST for updating annotations. And I am suggesting, for just the reasons documented, that it is a good idea to drop the practice of using POST for updates. chaals >-jose > >On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 09:05:53PM -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I prefer to have the HTTP semantics less ambiguous. If a PUT always means >> updating an existing thing, and a POST always means creating a new one, then >> it is possible to create simpler servers - if they have to check the HTTP >> protocol used and the message on the wire it introduces complexity and I >> don't see any value in it. >> >> Backwards compatibility with systems that don't do PUT seems a backwards step >> given that Annotea is a new system anyway, and I would prefer to remove such >> complications. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219 >[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219#PostUpdate > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22 Post: 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia or W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, FranceReceived on Monday, 20 January 2003 07:52:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:19:19 GMT