Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code]

On 04/01/2011 02:01 PM, Nathan wrote:
> fwd'ing to some relevant lists - would be very happy to see a proper
> response from W3C / HTML WG chairs, particularly the question "And
> *where* should this activity happen?"

Where is in bug reports:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Should you (or anyone) wish to escalate a proposed RESOLUTION by the 
editor, you will be encouraged to join the working group and participate 
by creating a proposal and participating in the discussion:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/#join

> best, nathan

- Sam Ruby

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code
> Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:45:27 +0000
> Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:41:52 -0400
> From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
> To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> CC: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> References: <4D933811.6@wp.pl> <4D933ECD.2040601@gmx.de>
>
> I see the bug has been re-opened.
>
> I see there has been some discussion on public-html-comments regarding
> PUT/DELETE[1].
> I also note at least one suggestion in that thread was to discuss this
> on the whatwg list[2].
>
> What is the preferred way to proceed here?
> - List concerns/reservations and deal with them as they come up?
> - Draw up a straw man proposal (is there a standard format for this)?
> - Some other process?
>
> And *where* should this activity happen?
> - here
> - public-html-comments
> - whatwg
> - buglist
> - etc.
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Mar/thread.html
>
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Mar/0026.html
>
> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> http://twitter.com@mamund
> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
>
>
> #RESTFest 2010
> http://rest-fest.googlecode.com
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:31, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>> On 30.03.2011 16:02, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In [1] there are specified HTTP methods in 200 code. I think that this
>>> section should be extended to PUT and DELETE methods, because in [2] and
>>> [3] authors write references to 200 code [1]. In my opinion PUT and
>>> DELETE methods can be defined the same as POST (a representation
>>> describing or containing the result of the action). It could be very
>>> helpful especially for RESTful applications.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13#section-8.2.1
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13#section-7.6
>>>
>>> [3]
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13#section-7.7
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dominik Tomaszuk
>>
>> Hi Dominik,
>>
>> thanks for coming over here to discuss this.
>>
>> Let's have a look at PUT. Three things that come to mind what a 200
>> response
>> could carry are:
>>
>> - nothing (the server did what you asked for, and that's really all
>> you need
>> to know) -- this is what many (most) WebDAV servers will do
>>
>> - return a small status message
>>
>> - return the new representation of the resource
>>
>> There are probably more options. I'm not sure the HTTP spec can/should
>> mandate any.
>>
>> So also recent discussion of "Prefer"...: starting at
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011JanMar/0291.html>.
>>
>> BR, Julian
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 19:07:57 UTC