- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:24:07 -0800
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Feb 22, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > 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? You are missing that the target of PUT is the new resource, whereas the target of POST and ADDMEMBER are both the collection resource. As such, ADDMEMBER's semantics has very little in common with PUT (almost nothing, in fact, since any unsafe extension method can return 201 and communicate just as much, whereas PUT is unique in what it communicates by the 200/201). ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 08:30:56 UTC