- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:57:21 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Julian Reschke wrote: ><http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/547> > >During IESG revied, Ted Lemon came up with this question: > >> The paragraph crossing the page break at the bottom of page 16 (ed: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25.html#rfc.section.3.1.4.2.p.8>): >> >> For example, if a client makes a PUT request on a negotiated resource >> and the origin server accepts that PUT (without redirection), then >> the new state of that resource is expected to be consistent with the >> one representation supplied in that PUT; the Content-Location cannot >> be used as a form of reverse content selection identifier to update >> only one of the negotiated representations. If the user agent had >> wanted the latter semantics, it would have applied the PUT directly >> to the Content-Location URI. >> >> It's good that there's an example here, but this creates more questions >> than it answers: if I do a PUT to a particular URI, for which there are >> currently multiple representations of the document in different languages, >> based on a GET that had a specific language representation, is the >> semantics being specified here that the other language representations >> go away? That's kind of what it sounds like. >To which I replied: > >Mainly it means that it's a bad idea to do it, unless the other language >versions are automatically updated somehow. The main point is that if >you want a single variant of a content-negotiated resource to be >authorable, you better serve it with a specific Content-Location, so >that the authoring client then can use the specific URI to update just >that variant. It seems plausible to me that a PUT to a negotiated resource might turn it into a non-negotiated resource. Using PUT to change how the resource is negotiated (say, link a new variant to it so it can be considered in future negotiations) does not seem that far off either. I do not really see the difficulty in understanding the text above. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 19:57:48 UTC