- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:14:30 +0200
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Mark Baker wrote: > On 4/3/06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: >>> If a new resource is created, the origin server MUST inform the >>> user agent via the 201 (Created) response. >> So, if I PUT something to /foo, and it has the side effect if >> creating /foo;2006-04-03, is the response required to be a 201 Created? > > Seems so. > >> I.e., read literally, the above requirement requires a 201 Created >> when PUT results in *any* resource being created -- even as a side >> effect. >> >> This is IMO unnecessarily constraining, and should be relaxed; e.g., >> changed to something like >> >> "If a new resource is created at the Request-URI, the origin server >> MUST inform the user agent via the 201 (Created) response." > > Hmm, *that* seems more constraining to me; could the server not just > return a Location header with value "/foo;2006-04-03" in the 201? Well, I know of code that uses the status code for a PUT to find out whether the server has created a new resource (201) at *that* URL, or whether it was just updated (200). That may be considered a bad assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised if some generic client start to act weird if they think a certain URL was mapped, PUT to it, and then get a 201. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 07:16:13 UTC