- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:18:09 +0200
- To: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- CC: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 05.04.2011 17:37, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote: > ... > Do you foresee a scenario where the same request is submitted yet a different response is required? This would be impossible for any service and against the authority of the service to define it's own implementation. > ... Yes. > In the example of a combined agent (i'm thinking in the same vein of the old netscape navigator?) wouldn't the different functional contexts define different requests? > > Why would a WebDAV service initiate a request with "Accept: text/html" if it doesn't want html? Unlikely on purpose, but there's a risk that they may be sending a default because they don't care. Also, absence of "Accept:" implies "accepts anything", so you wouldn't be able to do conneg by the spec. >>> I think a distinction must be made between the response of a GET on the resource to the response of a PUT or DELETE (or even POST) to a resource. >> >> Not sure I understand. >> >> When the browser does a GET on the authorable resource, do you want to return a simple representation, or a form that allows *editing* that representation? > > The representation should be whatever the resource defines... if i had an authorable resource i would probably be inclined to return a simple representation for the base and maybe provide a link to an editable representation, eg: > > http://www.example.com/user/123 > > http://www.example.com/user/123?edit=true > > or maybe > > http://www.example.com/user/123/profileEditor True. Like it's done a lot in Wikis. So, when you serve the form at http://www.example.com/user/123?edit=true where will it direct the PUT to, and what representation would you expect in the PUT result? > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 16:18:45 UTC