- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:39:11 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> But in this case a temporary redirect is actually needed. If the >> client gets a 301, it potentially use the URI given in Location: for >> all subsequent request, and that's definitively not what people want >> in this case. > > In that case, use of PUT is not an option. PUT implies that the client > wants to use that URI. 301 is saying that they can't use that URI, but > they should try using this other URI for the *same resource*. > > It seems to me that their use case requires POST. Why is that a problem? The only problem is that in WebDAV land there's some reluctance to use POST for *anything*, because of it's open ended semantics. That's why I made a proposal through which a server can advertise a URI that accepts POST requests for the purpose of creating collection membbers (WebDAV property/link relation/element in response body). >>> ... >> Right now some work around their problem by accepting the PUT (with >> 201), but storing the resource under a different URI, and it seems to >> me that this a bad idea (given the PUT semantics defined in HTTP). > > It isn't allowed by HTTP for that reason. > ... Indeed. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 23:39:56 UTC