Re: #547 clarify PUT on content negotiated resource

On 10 January 2014 10:12, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Not sure about that. Maybe there are use cases I'm not aware of.

Sometimes negotiation is just formats, in which case it's not a bad
idea exactly.  It is, after all, just representations we're talking
about.  For instance, I've seen numerous cases where PUT of XML is
perfectly able to cause the JSON representation to update correctly.
For natural language, I'm sure that automatic translation is possible
to a certain extent too, if perhaps inadvisable...

I'm not sure what to say here.  If it's clear that the URI for a
negotiated resource is effectively a label for multiple things that
are logically the one thing, and the other URIs that might appear in
Content-Location are identifiers for the individual facets of that
uber-thing, then that should be enough to allow people to reach their
own conclusions.

Maybe:

  A PUT to a negotiated resource is expected to set the state of the
resource for all alternative representations.  This is easily possible
if the translation between representations is purely mechanical,
though less mechanical translations, such as natural language
translation might cause this sort of operation to be difficult and
therefore inadvisable.

Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 18:41:00 UTC