- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:53:42 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:02:46PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > This feature of HTTP is already defined as > > POST + media-type ==> 201 + location I was thinking the same thing Roy, but a new method would have the advantage of improved visibility; an intermediary observing a POST/201 interaction wouldn't see anything in the POST request which licensed it to interpret that request as an attempt to store state, whereas a new method would provide exactly that license. Had HTTP a means for extending a method to declare this additional expectation (as described in the draft's A.3 using RFC 2774), I agree that POST + extension would be appropriate. > The media type is more than > sufficient to distinguish this action from any other type of > misdirected POST, How so? AFAICT, the media type could be anything. Did I miss something in the I-D? But even if there was such a limitation, that seems a bit kludgy to me; could such an assumption be expected to hold for even the foreseeable future? I wouldn't have thought so. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 12:54:25 UTC