On 19 Oct 2012, at 17:14, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> >>> A logical consequence would then be to allow creating a resource within >>> a container using PUT in the same way. >> >> Could you explain that? My understanding is that PUT replaces the >> entire contents at the target. >> >> --------- >> PUT /foo >> Host: example.com >> >> <> a foaf:document . >> --------- >> had better put that RDF at the requests target (adding server >> properties) and have <> as <http://example.com/foo> > > Well, I agree that the PUT would need to name the resource - which actually, would help in the "what is URI of POSTed document" discussion :) A PUT with a relative URI should also be able to work fine. That would allow one to build templates which one could then PUT at locations, without the client needing to serialise and deserialise the document locally. It is not as serious as the issue with POST, but it is a nice consequence of allowing it for POST that it should work with PUT too. > > but, really, I think we need to think about how we are using POST. > Would it be possible to have a new issue to re-consider this assumption please Arnaud ? > > thanks, > Roger > >> or things get very >> weird in the relationship of PUT then a GET on the same URI. >> >> Andy >> >> > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 16:01:58 UTC