W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2004

Re: HTTP Methods. MGET.

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:01:48 -0500
To: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <001001c3fe0b$ca14c500$0902a8c0@waldendesktop>

:
: It's probably been mentioned already, but switching on the mime type
doesn't
: work as-is, as the RDF/XML won't usually be about the resource identified
by
: the uri. I've a feeling Patrick also had an answer for the suggestion of a
: different mime type...

Abstracting from the actual protocol implementations for a second, is it
true that all that is needed is some way to unambiguously mark a GET
request so it's clear that it's asking for resource.description, as opposed
to resource.representation?  I don't believe I've ever witnessed consensus
on that yet in this thread.

[snip]

: Incidentally, Roy states "doubling method space is evil", and shows a
: similar sentiment about halving method space, as HTML forms tends towards.
: Is this because it has been determined (through formal reasoning?) we have
: *exactly* the methods we'll ever need, or merely that only minor,
: incremental additions/reductions should be considered?

Sorry if I failed to find the answer to this in Patrick's publications, but
if
MGET is the vehicle into description space, and descriptions are properly
identified resources, then are the other M* methods really needed?  If not,
then the "doubling" problem is mitigated, right?

--Walden
Received on Saturday, 28 February 2004 10:01:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:41 UTC