- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:44:24 -0500
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I agree with Tim and John. Although the HTTP/1.1 spec doesn't make GET/PUT behavior as explicit as we might want, I don't believe there is any confusion in the community as to the behavior of GET/PUT on an ordinary resource. I believe any attempt by us to define the core semantics of GET/PUT would lead folks to believe we are trying to *change* the definition of GET/PUT, which is very much not what we want to do. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:58 AM To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: RE: Autoversion confusion John wrote: > This shouldn't be necessary, since the HTTP spec > defines the behavior of GET and PUT. Specifically, > it says that PUT to a particular resource defines > the response for any following GET on that same > resource (I'm paraphrasing from memory). There > can't be any other possible interpretation (that > doesn't break HTTP semantics). I agree with John. At the risk of nagging<g>, a version-controlled resource is an honest to goodness WebDAV resource, with content and properties (version-controlled collections have members and properties). Intuatively, if a PUT to the resource succeeds (200 OK) then a client is entitled to believe they will GET the same entity back. p.s. I had a quick look through the HTTP/1.1 spec, and didn't see anything that states this categorically. In fact, Section 9.6 (PUT) states: "HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an origin server." Now, how many clients do a GET just to check what they actually will retrieve after a successful PUT! Tim
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 07:36:16 UTC