- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:01:58 +0100
- To: public-html-comments@w3.org, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, mike amundsen <mca@amundsen.com>
fwd'ing to some relevant lists - would be very happy to see a proper response from W3C / HTML WG chairs, particularly the question "And *where* should this activity happen?" best, nathan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:45:27 +0000 Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:41:52 -0400 From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com> To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> CC: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org References: <4D933811.6@wp.pl> <4D933ECD.2040601@gmx.de> I see the bug has been re-opened. I see there has been some discussion on public-html-comments regarding PUT/DELETE[1]. I also note at least one suggestion in that thread was to discuss this on the whatwg list[2]. What is the preferred way to proceed here? - List concerns/reservations and deal with them as they come up? - Draw up a straw man proposal (is there a standard format for this)? - Some other process? And *where* should this activity happen? - here - public-html-comments - whatwg - buglist - etc. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Mar/thread.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Mar/0026.html mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2010 http://rest-fest.googlecode.com On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:31, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 30.03.2011 16:02, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> In [1] there are specified HTTP methods in 200 code. I think that this >> section should be extended to PUT and DELETE methods, because in [2] and >> [3] authors write references to 200 code [1]. In my opinion PUT and >> DELETE methods can be defined the same as POST (a representation >> describing or containing the result of the action). It could be very >> helpful especially for RESTful applications. >> >> [1] >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13#section-8.2.1 >> [2] >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13#section-7.6 >> [3] >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13#section-7.7 >> >> Regards, >> >> Dominik Tomaszuk > > Hi Dominik, > > thanks for coming over here to discuss this. > > Let's have a look at PUT. Three things that come to mind what a 200 response > could carry are: > > - nothing (the server did what you asked for, and that's really all you need > to know) -- this is what many (most) WebDAV servers will do > > - return a small status message > > - return the new representation of the resource > > There are probably more options. I'm not sure the HTTP spec can/should > mandate any. > > So also recent discussion of "Prefer"...: starting at > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011JanMar/0291.html>. > > BR, Julian > >
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 18:03:12 UTC