- From: Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:40:43 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: www-annotation@w3.org
Charles, Have you read the new Annotea draft protocol [1]? This is not clear from your message. It actually documents what you're proposing and Appendix B [2] explains why we were using POST. In a previous message we asked developers for feedback wrt making PUT the prefered practice and dropping altogether POST for updating annotations. -jose On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 09:05:53PM -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > Hi, > > I prefer to have the HTTP semantics less ambiguous. If a PUT always means > updating an existing thing, and a POST always means creating a new one, then > it is possible to create simpler servers - if they have to check the HTTP > protocol used and the message on the wire it introduces complexity and I > don't see any value in it. > > Backwards compatibility with systems that don't do PUT seems a backwards step > given that Annotea is a new system anyway, and I would prefer to remove such > complications. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219 [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219#PostUpdate
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 05:40:46 UTC