W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: [Ietf-caldav] [Fwd: draft-reschke-http-addmember-00]

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:26:08 -0500
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050223042608.GF4504@markbaker.ca>

On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:52:55AM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2005, at 5:37 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
> >Ah, so you're saying that ADDMEMBER isn't uniform?
> Actually, no, I was saying that ADDMEMBER as currently defined
> is identical to POST.  Julian said that it wasn't identical because
> his client would be able to expect one semantic, namely that a
> 201 result would cause the webdav collection to contain a new
> member with the given media type.  That implies an additional
> requirement that the target be a webdav collection, which isn't
> uniform at all.

I get the DAV-collection-implies-non-uniform thing, and would be
against a revision which attributed that meaning to a 201 response.
But I'm just not seeing how ADDMEMBER==POST, sorry.

I still don't see how POST vs. ADDMEMBER is any different than POST
vs. PUT.  You previously said that PUT has "set the state of this
resource" semantics which is clearly different than POST.  IMO,
ADDMEMBER's semantics are very similar to PUT.  What (constraint?) am
I missing that suggests PUT is fine while ADDMEMBER isn't?

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 04:26:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:26 UTC