- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:04:24 +0100
- To: Mirko Gustony <mirko.gustony@gmail.com>
- CC: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>, thibault <thibault@miximum.fr>, public-html-comments@w3.org
On 2011-12-13 15:23, Mirko Gustony wrote: > Hello, > > excuse me but, > > 2011/12/13 Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>: >>> I think that is quite definitely Out Of Scope. If there needs to be >>> different content for the same format this should be a different URI. >> >> >> I disagree. If you need separate URIs to make this work, something is wrong. > > from my reading of [1] (and several other sources on that) Cameron > seems to be right. Different content (not different representation) > means different document and therefor different URI. We're talking about a single resource (thus one URI), that gets a DELETE request. Different clients have different expectations on the response payload they get for a successful DELETE, though. Most non-HTML clients do not care about any additional information, so sending more than a status message is a waste of bits. Note that HTTP says: "A successful response SHOULD be 200 (OK) if the response includes an entity describing the status, 202 (Accepted) if the action has not yet been enacted, or 204 (No Content) if the action has been enacted but the response does not include an entity." -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.9.7> So you can send a "status" page, but assuming that a server always will do that would be incorrect because most clients will not need it. > I for one would welcome a solution for bringing RESTful webservices to > HTML forms without hacks or Javascript. > ... Yes, but please let's not replace one kind of hack with a different kind of hack. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 15:05:05 UTC