- From: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:31:14 PDT
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Congratulations to Judy for creating this first draft. I have some questions, and I think I see some problems. This is the first of several messages, one per topic, on this draft. The draft proposes the new referential members will be created using M-PUT (the syntax defined in the ID "Mandatory Extensions in HTTP"). This ensures that the server understands the additional headers necessary to define a referential member correctly. The URI in the method is that of the collection, and the URI of the new referential member is in the Referential-Member header. Using the M-PUT method (as opposed to plain old PUT) allows the client to be sure that the server does understand the new headers (e.g. Referential-Member) defined in the protocol. Unless I misunderstand the Mandatory ID, this isn't quite right, because it specifies that after processing the mandatory headers, the method is to be treated as an ordinary PUT, which in this case would be a PUT to an existing collection, which must fail. I suggest instead that the URI in the method be that of the referential member. This makes the M-PUT resemble the (ordinary) PUT more closely. You don't need to pass the URI of the collection to contain the ref member, since you can get that from syntax of the URI alone.
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 1998 16:31:45 UTC