W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2012

RE: Changing representations

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:34:35 -0400
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1343421275.2725.51555.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 13:05 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
> > > If I've understood correctly, you have described two competing service
> > > models for a given URI: (a) one PUT affects all GET media types; versus
> > > (b) one PUT per GET media type.  Both seem perfectly valid and seem to
> > > me to fill different use cases.  
> 
> > A use case for (b) is when it is expensive for the server to generate
> > the different media types, and the server is willing to trust the client
> > to maintain semantic consistency between the media types.  Certainly
> > this is a very rare use case, but nonetheless valid.  
> 
> But this case is much better served by the server maintaining separate
> URIs for each rendering and redirecting the 'main' (un-PUT-able)
> resource.
> Attempting to maintain separate, expensive-to-produce media types
> through the same URI seems like a disaster, which doesn't match any
> implementation anyway.

I certainly agree, but I think the original question was more about
whether model (a) is *required* rather than whether it is *advisable*
(though I may be mistaken):

On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 11:39 +0200, Danny Ayers wrote: 
> [ . . . ] The
> interpretation I saw by this guy on a list, trying to follow the spec
> properly, was like there were different buckets hanging of the
> resource, you push some json, the json bucket changes. Does that
> influence the other buckets?


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 20:35:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 July 2012 20:35:04 GMT