- From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:38:04 -0500
- To: "'Yaron Goland'" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Right. This is definitely a mistake that needs to be fixed. --Judy -----Original Message----- From: Yaron Goland [mailto:yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 2:49 AM To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org' Subject: Yaron.Redirect.PUT The last sentence of the last paragraph of section 6.2 reads: "The result in this case is that the reference resource is replaced by a non-reference resource having the content submitted with the request." If a Apply-To-Redirect-Ref PUT results in the reference resource being replaced then the reference spec will have robbed its users of any mechanism to specify the response to a Apply-To-Redirect-Ref GET. I can't find any reason for requiring this behavior given that a Apply-To-Redirect-Ref DELETE followed by a PUT can achieve the same result and still leave users the ability to specify the results of a Apply-To-Redirect-Ref GET. As such I move that this sentence be deleted. BTW, the reason I suggest deleting the sentence rather than replacing it with language specifying what happens when a PUT is applied is that there is no requirement that a PUT set the GET result. For example, the user may do a PUT with text/html and the server may choose to return it as text/plain. So it is very difficult to precisely specify what the result of a PUT is. What it is not, however, is a way to delete a resource. Otherwise it would make a mockery of unique resource IDs. Imagine I create a document and want to track it. What the document is created it is issued a resource ID that I record. That way, even if the document is moved, I can find it through its resource ID. If PUT worked as specified above then every time someone PUT to the resource the old resource would be deleted and a new one would be created with a new resource ID, so much for being able to track the document. As such it is clear that a PUT should not cause an implied DELETE.
Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 14:38:16 UTC