Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code

I see the bug has been re-opened.

I see there has been some discussion on public-html-comments regarding
PUT/DELETE[1].
I also note at least one suggestion in that thread was to discuss this
on the whatwg list[2].

What is the preferred way to proceed here?
- List concerns/reservations and deal with them as they come up?
- Draw up a straw man proposal (is there a standard format for this)?
- Some other process?

And *where* should this activity happen?
- here
- public-html-comments
- whatwg
- buglist
- etc.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Mar/thread.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Mar/0026.html

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me


#RESTFest 2010
http://rest-fest.googlecode.com




On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:31, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 30.03.2011 16:02, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In [1] there are specified HTTP methods in 200 code. I think that this
>> section should be extended to PUT and DELETE methods, because in [2] and
>> [3] authors write references to 200 code [1]. In my opinion PUT and
>> DELETE methods can be defined the same as POST (a representation
>> describing or containing the result of the action). It could be very
>> helpful especially for RESTful applications.
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13#section-8.2.1
>> [2]
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13#section-7.6
>> [3]
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13#section-7.7
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dominik Tomaszuk
>
> Hi Dominik,
>
> thanks for coming over here to discuss this.
>
> Let's have a look at PUT. Three things that come to mind what a 200 response
> could carry are:
>
> - nothing (the server did what you asked for, and that's really all you need
> to know) -- this is what many (most) WebDAV servers will do
>
> - return a small status message
>
> - return the new representation of the resource
>
> There are probably more options. I'm not sure the HTTP spec can/should
> mandate any.
>
> So also recent discussion of "Prefer"...: starting at
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011JanMar/0291.html>.
>
> BR, Julian
>
>

Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 13:42:25 UTC