- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:30:44 -0400
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 15/10/2013 5:33 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 15 October 2013 14:24, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>> Yes. Adding "on the server" and an example would definitely help.
>> Seems like a reasonable editorial clarification to me.
> It's low cost and improves comprehension. SGTM.
A lot of my interpretation is coming from reading "RESTful Web
Services" published in 2007. Unfortunately, I'm seeing more and more
contradictions between this book and what I'm reading on Stackoverflow.
Just one example I got today:
http://restfulwebapis.org/RESTful_Web_Services.pdf page 274 says to
return 301 from operations that rename a resource, but the answer found
at http://stackoverflow.com/a/19388228/14731 recommends to return 200
and 301 to subsequent requests to the old URI. To be honest, both
approach have their downsides and both make sense. The spec doesn't seem
to point towards one solution or the other which leaves me wondering
which is the best approach.
Is there a better/newer book I should read? httpbis contains many
useful pieces of the puzzle but it's not nearly as "complete" as reading
a book focused on authoring REST APIs.
Gili
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 22:31:15 UTC