- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:37:58 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:21:05AM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >IMO, it's because there are advantages to having messages which reflect > >the expectations of their sender. > > Umm, think about that sentence and you will find it has no content. > Messages reflect the instruction of the sender. POST does that. > > What you are really saying is that there are advantages to the > client knowing the nature of a resource, [lots of other stuff that I agree with snipped] Ah, so you're saying that ADDMEMBER isn't uniform? Sorry, I wasn't able to extract that from your other messages. But can you please explain your reasoning behind that belief? From my POV, the draft defines ADDMEMBER semantics to be a small, (seemingly) uniform adjustment upon PUT semantics. Can you give an example of a resource for which ADDMEMBER wouldn't make sense? Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 13:38:35 UTC