- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:43:38 -0700
- 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 I > suppose... it's undefined (which I suspect means folks could not agree!) 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