- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:50:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>, xsl-editors@w3.org
- CC: rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
"Kay, Michael" wrote: > > Thanks for the comment. I think it's hard for us to be prescriptive about > this. An XSLT processor designed solely for use on TV set-top-boxes might > have no market requirement (or technical possibility) to write output to an > HTTP PUT destination, nor indeed to anywhere other than the TV screen. We > want language interoperability, but we can't assume that all processors > execute in the same kind of environment. > > I don't mind, however, putting in some kind of note giving examples of the > sorts of URI that permit writing. Speaking for myself, I would be very happy with a non-normative note that would get across the point (in appropriate spec-ese) that HTTP is in fact a bidirectional protocol and that it would make just as much sense to PUT to an HTTP URI as to a file system path. If at all possible, please use the word "PUT" (if even in a non-normative example) so that we have a chance of interoperability among implementations. (there will be a tempation to use the more popular "POST" even though it does not have the same "overwrite file" semantic). Something like: "For example writing to a file://... URI would overwrite a file. Writing to an http://... URI would invoke the HTTP PUT method." Paul Prescod
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 22:24:54 UTC