On Jun 8, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > If you strictly follow the method semantics defined in the HTTP 1.1 > protocol, then it is RESTful. But HTTP 1.1 doesn't enforce those > method semantics. That would be considered "abuse", though. >
Is it true that a system that makes extensive use of the POST loophole, but only does so where "the origin server is accepting the entity enclosed in the request as a new subordinate of the resource identified by the Request-URI" (from spec) would still be RESTful then? Many WS-* implementations would certainly not qualify because things that should be GETs are being tunneled as POST, correct? The POST loophole concerns me. Clearly, you need POST because you need the ability to make a relative change to a resource, but it seems that as long as some form of update is happening, you can push about anything you want through POST and still be considered RESTful. It seems that this would be very tempting for someone to take a very un-resourceful approach. Am I correct on this? -tb
