Sorry, but no. There is no ambiguity, unless you try really hard to introduce one with thesaurus firmly in hand. Read the entire section before you comment!
>From Section 9.6: "The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a POST request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed entity. That resource might be a data-accepting process, a gateway to some other protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In contrast, the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server MUST NOT attempt to apply the request to some other resource." Clearly, the URI in a POST does *not* represent the entity -- the entity is subordinate to it. Just as clearly, "the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with the request." Where is the ambiguity here? Whether that entity is stored on the server in memory, in a individual file on disk, as a section of a file, as a row in a database, or even as an individual cell in a database table, is irrelevant as long as the *enclosed entity* is represented uniquely by the Request-URI, the PUT is satisfied. There is a one-to-one correspondence. If "under" meant "subordinate," then subordinate to *what*? It's not necessary to "suspect that [my] interpretation does correspond to the author's intent" -- their intent is spelled out clearly. (But then, their intent is irrelevant. The RFC is what it is. If it's wrong, then you write a new one. You don't go around trying to guess what the authors' "intent" was -- down that path lies madness. Phillip Hallam-Baker *meant* referrer, but he wrote REFERER and it has been REFERER ever since. You go with the standard as written.) These sorts of discussions are not only pointless, they're potentially harmful as they introduce controversy where none is necessary, wasting time and fraying tempers. I repeat, the RFC is *quite clear* on the difference between POST and PUT -- Roy Fielding, et al, did an excellent job of it. Can we, finally, let it rest there? (Pun intended.) Chas. >> From: c...@munat.com [mailto:c...@munat.com] >> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Parameters disappear from PUTs] >> >> RFC 2616 is quite clear on this topic, IMO. > > Maybe not. > >> The POST method is used "to request that the origin server accept the >> *entity* enclosed in the request as a new ***subordinate*** of the >> resource identified by the Request-URI in the Request-Line." >> >> In contrast, the PUT method "requests that the enclosed *entity* be >> stored *under the supplied Request-URI*." > > Unfortunately, one of the synonyms of "subordinate" is "under", so there's > a degree of ambiguity here. One could interpret the two clauses as being > identical, depending on one's semantic education. (I suspect your > interpretation does correspond to the authors' intent, but it's certainly > not 100% clear.) > > - Chuck > > > THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY > MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you > received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail > and its attachments from all computers. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
