- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:09:50 +0200
- To: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2015-04-17 10:37, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: > >> On 10 Apr 2015, at 18:00, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Please see: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snell-search-method/ >> >> Comments welcome. > > [[ > The payload returned in response to a SEARCH cannot be > assumed to be a representation of the resource identified by the > effective request URI. > ]] > > I think that should rather be > > [[ > The payload returned in response to a SEARCH is a partial > representation of the resource identified by the effective > request URI. > ]] I don't think that's the intention, nor would it be consistent with the current use of SEARCH. > The way I think one has to understand SEARCH is in the context of the > other the two other HTTP verbs: > > - GET: returns a representation of the effective request URI > - PUT: changes the representation of the effective request URI to the new representation > > then SEARCH is like PATCH just a way of efficiently doing GET and PUT > > - SEARCH: allows on to get a part of the full representation of the request URI ( using whatever is the > most appropriate query language ) Depending on the query language, the result might just be a list of URIs. I don't see how to interpret this as partial representation... > - PATCH: allows one to replace part of the representation of the request URI > > > It may be that by making this clear in the document it becomes easier for reviewers > to understand that of course this does not require a representation to be specified, the > same way that the GET verb does not require one. > > Also I am not sure what in 4.2 you mean by a ""SPAQRL query. > > > Henry > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 09:10:22 UTC