Re: [ISSUE-30] Suggestions for HTTP protocol updates

On 4 Jun 2009, at 12:50, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:

> On Thursday 04 June 2009 12:57:20 Steve Harris wrote:
>> Nothing in expects  
>> the
>> *client* to break apart the URI or try to determine meaning from
>> fragments it didn't assemble itself, so it has no more impact on
>> opacity than ?graph=.
> Ah, you're right. I can accept that.
> But still, it is easier to use it if you get a parameter in most  
> frameworks,
> which takes care of the parsing.

I think not for PUT.

Andy's concern was correct, not many frameworks that I can see support  
CGI arguments with PUT, so the straight URI form is actually easier to  
handle, and more conventional.

That said, I would be content with a ?graph= type approach, even if  
it's a bit unusual.

- Steve

Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  

Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:37:23 UTC