- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:15:30 +1200
- To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11.07.2012 05:12, Robert Brewer wrote: > 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. > The same would appear to be true for POST entity relative URLs as well. Is there some problem I'm overlooking? AYJ
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 23:16:00 UTC