> > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:46 UTC