W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Summing up on visibility(?)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:33:53 -0500
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030108223353.D529@www.markbaker.ca>

On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:52:22AM -0800, Ugo Corda wrote:
> > This is in contrast to if the ugly string was just opaque 
> > data on which
> > no further dispatch decision could be made.  Then the 
> > intermediary would
> > be able to conclude that the client was trying to set the state of the
> > identified resource to the value in that string, even if it 
> > didn't know
> > anything about the string or its meaning.
> Why? PUT is idempotent but not safe. RFC 2616 says "HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an origin server".

Sorry Ugo, I don't understand the question, or the relevance of that
quoted text to my assertion.  Can you elaborate?

FWIW, if it's a PUT issue, I could construct a GET example that
demonstrated the same thing, just with the string in the URI, instead of
in the body.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 22:33:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:02 UTC