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 20:22:43 -0500
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <002201c3fe62$88686920$1302a8c0@waldennotebook>

|
|           The other methods are needed if we wish to allow interaction
with
|            descriptions other than retrieval. E.g. adding to the knowledge
about
|            a resource or removing some or all of the knowledge about a
resource.

    It seems to me that once you've applied the MGET "gateway", the
    regular HTTP verbs should work for mutation, no?

|
|            Also, note that the semantics/behavior of MPUT/MDELETE do not
differ
|            from PUT/DELETE simply in the matter of dealing with
descriptions rather
|            than arbitrary representations -- but also in that they are not
absolute,
|            but partial operations on a description. PUT completely
replaces an already
|            existing representation (if any). DELETE completely removes a
representation.
|            Yet MPUT adds to the description of a resource. And MDELETE can
partially
|            remove statements from the description of a resource (or remove
it entirely).

    Don't regular POST and PUT serve the purpose?  POST, to append
    to the description; PUT to replace the description with one sans the
deleted
    material.

    Also, while I like MGET because it clearly targets a different level of
    abstraction (sort of a gateway into "description land"), the other M
methods
    seem to bring abstraction level ambiguity back: which URI do I use
    for the MPUT, and which resource does it act on?  These may be
    specified in your paper, but they seem like the kind of thing that's
easy
    to confuse (or forget).

    Walden
Received on Saturday, 28 February 2004 20:22:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:03 UTC