Re: POST & HTTP Update

On 2010-11-25, at 14:50, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 25/11/10 10:40, Steve Harris wrote:
> ..
>> The fact that POST updates are not yet fully specified in is a source of concern to us.
>> - Steve
> Could you say what isn't specified and should be?

I don't remember exactly. I think it wasn't clear if the payload should me a mime form, or GET-style URI fields.

> Currently I use the Content-type to get the syntax, the body is the payload and payload = RDF document from earlier in the spec.

Where do you get the graph URI from?

> I return 200 if the target existed, and 201 if it didn't which is my (limited) understand of correct status codes for HTTP.

Sounds reasonable. I don't know what we do offhand.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Thursday, 25 November 2010 16:16:26 UTC