- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:05:02 -0700
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
> > If I've understood correctly, you have described two competing service > > models for a given URI: (a) one PUT affects all GET media types; versus > > (b) one PUT per GET media type. Both seem perfectly valid and seem to > > me to fill different use cases. > A use case for (b) is when it is expensive for the server to generate > the different media types, and the server is willing to trust the client > to maintain semantic consistency between the media types. Certainly > this is a very rare use case, but nonetheless valid. But this case is much better served by the server maintaining separate URIs for each rendering and redirecting the 'main' (un-PUT-able) resource. Attempting to maintain separate, expensive-to-produce media types through the same URI seems like a disaster, which doesn't match any implementation anyway.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 20:05:28 UTC