- From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:59:22 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
If creating multiple resources via POST is indeed a valid interpretation of 2616, could this be clarified in the 2616bis? Thanks Subbu On Feb 4, 2008, at 6:40 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > I don't think that does the trick. APP creates multiple resources > and returns a 201 with a Location of the "Member entry URI", > mentioning that other resources could have been created in the > process. > > So, a 201 can imply the creation of one or more resources; if the > response contains metadata (e.g., Location, ETag), they are > associated with the most important one, in the judgement of the > server. > > > > On 31/01/2008, at 7:14 AM, Yves Lafon wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>>> Should we keep this "multiple locations for one resource" paradigm? >>> >>> First of all, I do not agree with the "single new resource" >>> interpretation. As Brian observed, that would be a conflict with >>> RFC5023. >> >> In that case, we need to amend the current text as I read it as >> implying there is only one new resource. >> Also: >> <<< >> A 201 response MAY contain an ETag response header field indicating >> the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just >> created, see Section 6.1 of [Part4]. >>>>> >> Should be: >> <<< >> If one single resource is created, a 201 response MAY contain... >>>>> >> >> -- >> Baroula que barouleras, au
Received on Monday, 25 February 2008 20:59:22 UTC