- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 14:27:08 -0500
- To: <www-archive@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "S. Mike Dierken" <mike@dierken.com> To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Comments about http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture#Content : is GET the only idempotent method > Yes - I didn't want to appear to be too nitpicky... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org> > To: "S. Mike Dierken" <mike@dierken.com> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:46 AM > Subject: Re: Comments about > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture#Content : is GET the only > idempotent method > > > > You only replied to me. May I forward this to a public archive? Tim > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "S. Mike Dierken" <mike@dierken.com> > > To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org> > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 2:37 AM > > Subject: Re: Comments about > > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture#Content : is GET the only > > idempotent method > > > > > > > What about HEAD? > > > > Good point. The question s, if you want meta-information about a > resource, > > then you have to boostrap yourself somehow even if the metadata is > avaialble > > in another document. > > > > > Is it even used? > > > > Yes, I think so. > > > > > Does it/can it return an entity body, or just headers (e.g > Content-Length, > > > Content-Type, eTag, Location, etc.) > > > > Only headers (I hope) > > > > > Not that I'm too concerned about it, but there is a question in my mind > > > about whether 'status of cvs document' (from your example) should always > > be > > > an entity-body with uri separate from the document itself, or if its > okay > > to > > > return that as a response header. (probably depends on how much you like > > to > > > deal with compound documents). > > > > Oh, if it is small a response header is fine. Something like the entire > CVS > > log > > in hyeprtext, or a general admin page like http://www.w3.org/,tools > > > > > If it's okay to return that extra metadata in a header, then HEAD might > be > > a > > > viable alternative to a separate uri. > > > > Certainly, if we are talking about a small amount of information. > > > > > If some metadata like 'status' is a > > > separate resource, how do different apps coordinate/discover the > > association > > > between the two resources. One way would be to return a 'get your > metadata > > > here' header in responses (which is not much different than putting the > > > value in a header and using HEAD). > > > > Yes, that is what I envisage. > > > > Content-type: text/html > > Adminpage: foo.html,tools > > > > > Another would be to put it in the > > > response entity-body (if it supported links). > > > > > > Agreed. > > Tim > > > > > Mike > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org> > > > To: "Mike Dierken" <mike@dataconcert.com> > > > Cc: <www-tag@w3.org> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:32 PM > > > Subject: Re: Comments about > > > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture#Content : is GET the only > > > idempotent method > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > In Message-ID: > > > <2AE31649CF989F4FB354F6D95EB0CE6E4D6745@xmlfmail.xmlfund.com> > > > > From: Mike Dierken <mike@dataconcert.com> > > > > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:53:06 -0800 > > > > Subject: Comments about > > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture#Conten > > > > t : is GET the only idempotent method > > > > > > > > you say, > > > > > > > > """http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture#Content > > > > "The introduction of any other method apart from GET which is > idempotent > > > is > > > > also incorrect, because the results of such an operation effectively > > form > > > a > > > > separate address space, which violates the universality." > > > > > > > > I though that PUT was idempotent - it is okay to do the same PUT twice > > > > without bad stuff happening""" > > > > > > > > You were right, I was wrong. I have changed the paragraph to read: > > > > > > > > """The introduction of any other method apart from GET which has no > > > > side-effects and is simply a function of the URI is also incorrect, > > > because > > > > the results of such an operation effectively form a separate address > > > space, > > > > which violates the universality.""" > > > > > > > > I have also added: > > > > > > > > """(Example: Instead of defining a new method CVSSTAT to retreive the > > > code > > > > management status of a document, that status should be given a URI in > > the > > > > server's space, and headers used to point the aware client to it. > > > > Otherwise, we end up with a class of document which contains > interesting > > > > informatio but cannot be linked to.)""" > > > > > > > > This should make more sense. I misused the word "idempotent". > > > > > > > > Tim BL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 12 January 2002 14:27:15 UTC