- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:33:53 -0500
- To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:52:22AM -0800, Ugo Corda wrote: > > This is in contrast to if the ugly string was just opaque > > data on which > > no further dispatch decision could be made. Then the > > intermediary would > > be able to conclude that the client was trying to set the state of the > > identified resource to the value in that string, even if it > > didn't know > > anything about the string or its meaning. > > Why? PUT is idempotent but not safe. RFC 2616 says "HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an origin server". Sorry Ugo, I don't understand the question, or the relevance of that quoted text to my assertion. Can you elaborate? FWIW, if it's a PUT issue, I could construct a GET example that demonstrated the same thing, just with the string in the URI, instead of in the body. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 22:33:21 UTC