- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:05:55 +0200
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Maybe it would be more appropriate to reuse the response codes as defined for MOVE in RFC 2518: 201: newly created 204: replaced existing resource etc. //Stefan Am Mittwoch, 09.10.02, um 22:19 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Clemm, Geoff: > A problem with 200/201, is that 201 means "a new resource > was created", but a BIND never creates a new resource, but > just creates a new binding to an existing resource. We could > of course still use 200/201, but I'd be concerned that it would > be misleading. Ohoh. resources, uris and representations. That's www-tag ground we're treating on here. I think one needs at least 8 years experience in HTTP and Apache development to talk about that topic... ;) Anyway: a BIND creates a mapping for an URI to a representation exactly like PUT does. That the representation is not supplied by the client, but reused from another URI, is not relevant. > If a client has asked that BIND overwrite any existing binding > for that segment, why would it care whether or not there was > already a binding there? > > Cheers, > Geoff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 2:55 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: BIND method response codes > > > > Hi, > > similarily to the PUT method, I'd like to be able to distinguish > between > > - a new BIND was created (201) > - an existing BIND was overwritten (200) > > > Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 04:19:27 UTC