- From: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:12:12 -0700
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-07-10 16:55, Robert Brewer wrote: > > Section 5.1 of draft-19 part 2 says, "An HTTP request representation, > > when present, is always associated with an anonymous (i.e., > > unidentified) resource." [1] That makes perfect sense for POST, but > for > > PUT it makes sense IMO to declare that the representation is > associated > > with the target resource. Or is the intent that the representation > "is > > *to become* associated", and is therefore considered anonymous before > > the request had been handled? > > Yes, that's (IMHO) the intent. The decision is up to the server (after > all, it could reject the request). > > > This is important for at least one reason: I believe this section in > the > > HTTP spec could be useful to establish a base URI for request > entities > > according to section 5.1 of the URI spec [2] (which itself might be > > underspecified in this regard; it doesn't say much about operations > > other than retrieval). > > Do you need that functionality until the time the PUT has succeeded? The server needs to establish a base URI for any relative URI's in the request entity. If the entity itself does not include a 'base' attribute (and many media types do not allow for one at all), it seems natural for PUT to default to the Request-URI, rather than leave it up to the application to specify (and then document) for each URI. Robert Brewer fumanchu@aminus.org
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 17:12:39 UTC