- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 22:09:02 +0200
- To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 18 May 2013, at 19:34, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote: > hello henry. > > On 2013-05-18 10:14 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >>> No, the reason was that POST is HTTP's catch-all extension point for >>> "other" operations, and it would be bad to "use up" that extension point >>> on all LDP-managed resources. LDP implementers should have the liberty >>> of using POST to an LDPR for other things beside append >> yes, so PATCH was suggested instead. Still the semantics of POST in HTTP >> is that it is >> to create a new resource or to append to the resource. So perhaps we >> should reconsider. > > that's historical by now and not as HTTP has been used for the last couple > of years. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22#section-4.3.3 > thus is much more general and simply says: > > "The POST method requests that the target resource process the > representation enclosed in the request according to the resource's own > specific semantics." Thanks for pointing that out. I was just arguing for POST as a method to append, because my feeling is that our not having PATCH means that peeople want all interactions to happen in the LDPC, where I think it could be that we can get all our use cases solved by just linking LDPRs intelligently. I was just hoping that the idea of POSTing to an LDPR-that-is-not-an-LDPC we could move some of the group members to intuit that they can solve their problems in a simpler way. Henry > > cheers, > > dret. > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Saturday, 18 May 2013 20:09:35 UTC