- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:34:35 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 13:05 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: > > > 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. I certainly agree, but I think the original question was more about whether model (a) is *required* rather than whether it is *advisable* (though I may be mistaken): On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 11:39 +0200, Danny Ayers wrote: > [ . . . ] The > interpretation I saw by this guy on a list, trying to follow the spec > properly, was like there were different buckets hanging of the > resource, you push some json, the json bucket changes. Does that > influence the other buckets? -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 20:35:04 UTC