- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:52:55 -0800
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Feb 22, 2005, at 5:37 AM, Mark Baker wrote: > Ah, so you're saying that ADDMEMBER isn't uniform? Actually, no, I was saying that ADDMEMBER as currently defined is identical to POST. Julian said that it wasn't identical because his client would be able to expect one semantic, namely that a 201 result would cause the webdav collection to contain a new member with the given media type. That implies an additional requirement that the target be a webdav collection, which isn't uniform at all. > Can you give an example of a resource > for which ADDMEMBER wouldn't make sense? No, which is why it is POST by any other name. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 19:53:00 UTC