- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:21:47 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 20:22:29 UTC
On mån, 2008-10-20 at 22:12 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > Sorry. A bit tired. Didn't notice the change to POST. > > > > Switching to POST isn't good either. > > > > I'll second Brians response here. > > Which part? The whole message with 3 alternatives, all three of them. > > 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. > > Well, I proposed a new method for this in 2005, and the answer to that > was: just use POST. And that is what AtomPub has done. > > So is this suddenly the wrong advice? It's a matter of semantics. POST is meant for application transfers, for data being processed by the server, with no direct content mapping to the created resource (if any). PUT is a request to store an entity "as-is". However, creating a new method for this is defenitely not the right thing. Better to extend PUT to allow this use case by conditionally relaxing the target resource URI requirements, or use POST. Regards Henrik
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 20:22:29 UTC