W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2002

RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:43:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C1055358E4@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

> So there is no-prohibition on triggering behaviour with PUT... at best
> suppose... it's undefined (which I suspect means folks could not

If you do a PUT on a resource and then you do a GET on that same
resource, the response body for the GET should be the same thing that
you PUT.

Other than that, why would there be any restrictions on what the server
does "under the covers" for a PUT?

I didn't think anyone was arguing about that -- I thought the question
was about whether it was OK for the PUT body to bear no resemblance to a
subsequent GET.  And *that* is definitely *not* OK.  

There might be a loophole in the spec that could be interpreted such
that PUT could be used more laxly, but in practice people actually
adhere to the spirit of the PUT spec.  POST is already lost; in practice
almost *nobody* adheres to the spirit of the spec, and this annoys REST
advocates.  Other than watching REST advocates squirm even more, I don't
see a benefit in poking around for more loopholes in PUT spec that could
justify abuse.
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 12:44:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC