Re: ISSUE-58: the simple solution to inlined membership - ISSUE-45

On 18 May 2013, at 19:34, "Wilde, Erik" <> wrote:

> hello henry.
> On 2013-05-18 10:14 , "Henry Story" <> wrote:
>>> No, the reason was that POST is HTTP's catch-all extension point for
>>> "other" operations, and it would be bad to "use up" that extension point
>>> on all LDP-managed resources. LDP implementers should have the liberty
>>> of using POST to an LDPR for other things beside append
>> yes, so PATCH was suggested instead. Still the semantics of POST in HTTP
>> is that it is
>> to create a new resource or to append to the resource. So perhaps we
>> should reconsider.
> that's historical by now and not as HTTP has been used for the last couple
> of years. 
> thus is much more general and simply says:
> "The POST method requests that the target resource process the
> representation enclosed in the request according to the resource's own
> specific semantics."

Thanks for pointing that out.

I was just arguing for POST as a method to append, because my feeling is that
our not having PATCH means that peeople want all interactions to happen in the LDPC,
where I think it could be that we can get all our use cases solved by just linking
LDPRs intelligently. I was just hoping that the idea of POSTing to an LDPR-that-is-not-an-LDPC
we could move some of the group members to intuit that they can solve their problems
in a simpler way.


> cheers,
> dret.

Social Web Architect

Received on Saturday, 18 May 2013 20:09:35 UTC