RE: Is an XForm an application for, or a representation of an instance data?

Steven,

> Not sure if I agree with you there. GET and PUT are symmetric; it should  
> be perfectly normal to be able to request a resource, edit it, and PUT it  
> back.

We might be at cross purposes. I don't think there is anything unsual about GETting and PUTing to the same URI, but what I do think is interesting, and not well covered in documentation is the notion that the resource, embedded in the application that edits it, is just another representation of that resource. I know that's how HTML forms tend to work but it seems slightly more complicated with XForms especially if you then retrieve the resource you were planning to edit in the first place via a subsequent GET request. 



Regards

Philip 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Pemberton [mailto:Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:29 PM
To: www-forms@w3.org; Philip Fennell
Subject: Re: Is an XForm an application for, or a representation of an instance data?

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:26:47 +0200, Philip Fennell  
<Philip.Fennell@marklogic.com> wrote:

> The ability to request a representation of a resource that allows the  
> resource to be edited is an interesting one and I'm not sure it has been  
> covered in any great detail if at all.

Not sure if I agree with you there. GET and PUT are symmetric; it should  
be perfectly normal to be able to request a resource, edit it, and PUT it  
back. It annoys me greatly that it is so hard to do (partly a fault of  
Apache that they made something so basic so hard to achieve).

Steven

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 15:01:34 UTC