- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:07:17 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 20:08:03 UTC
Sorry. A bit tired. Didn't notice the change to POST. Switching to POST isn't good either. I'll second Brians response here. Additionally allowing for PUT to create a new resoure-URI completely different from the request-URI would make sense, but needs to be negotiated by a request header indicating that the client accepts this. Regards Henrik On mån, 2008-10-20 at 22:01 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > > IMHO the *right* thing to do is: > > > > C: PUT /folder/foo > > C: Host: ... > > C: > > C: Content > > > > S: HTTP/1.1 4xx > > S: > > S: You can't do that > > > Why 4xx. A redirect to the URI where the resource may be stored is more > appropriate. > > Hmm.. the text in PUT should be fixed as well.. 301 is not a good redirect code to use there due to the amount of broken implementations.. > > > and instead > > > > C: POST /folder > > C: Host: ... > > C: > > C: Content > > > > S: HTTP/1.1 201 Created > > S: Location: /folder/bar > > No. See above. > > REgards > Henrik
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 20:08:03 UTC