- From: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:58:44 +0100
- To: "Simpson, Grant Leyton" <glsimpso@indiana.edu>
- Cc: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>, "T.J. Crowder" <tj@crowdersoftware.com>, "public-html-comments@w3.org" <public-html-comments@w3.org>
I'm struggling to see what the problem with forms using other HTTP methods is.... On 30/03/2011, at 3:13 PM, Simpson, Grant Leyton wrote: > > > On 3/30/11 10:02 AM, "Cameron Heavon-Jones" <cmhjones@gmail.com> wrote: > >> A user agent should always respond by rendering whatever content is >> returned by the server as specified by the Accept header. This defines >> what response the agent can handle and what the user wants to see. >> >> The response status is a machine code for automated agents, not user >> agents. To expect a user agent (browser) to handle arbitrary response >> states for a user removes the user from making their decisions based on >> the information sent back from the server. > > Right. I agree and I'm not advocating that this would be the way to do it. > I was trying to point out that even were it to be done that way, that > still doesn't specify behavior at the level of the user agent's handling > the HTML form. > >> >> >> In the case of an automated agent, ie a business process, the response >> status is usually enough information with which to decide what action to >> take. Users require a formatted response in order to inform their >> decision making process. > > Agreed. > >> >> As a scenario, if a user submits a form for processing and the form >> contains server-vailidation errors, how else is this to be communicated >> to the user other than by providing back a html response with the >> original form, values and errors? It would seem that a unique request >> dictates the need for a unique response. >> >> Even for automated agents, the need for a customised response as a result >> of a failed request is desired as it is the only means of informing the >> agent of the specific nature of the error. Http status codes are too >> corse grained for anything other than highest-level automation. > > Absolutely. And that's why I don't think it's a good idea. (But I did a > poor job before of expressing that.) > >> >> cam >> >> >> On 30/03/2011, at 2:29 PM, Simpson, Grant Leyton wrote: >> >>> Right, but this does still does not cover specifying how the user agent >>> should respond to a HTTP 200 and how that response integrates with a >>> given >>> application. >>> >>> On 3/30/11 9:10 AM, "Dominik Tomaszuk" <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote: >>> >>>> It could be supported in the same way as POST: 200 OK (describing or >>>> containing the result of the action). HTTP in PUT and DELETE allowed >>>> 200 >>>> if an existing resource is modified in PUT or if it is a successful >>>> response (and it is consistent with the approach RESTful). >>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 14:59:22 UTC