IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ietf-caldav] [Fwd: draft-reschke-http-addmember-00]

Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> Tue, 22 February 2005 13:38 UTC

X-Envelope-From: distobj@acm.org
X-Envelope-To: <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>
Received: from bork.markbaker.ca (static-80-155.dsl.cuic.ca [216.126.80.155] (may be forged)) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j1MDcaaZ014853 for <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:38:36 -0800
Received: from mbaker by bork.markbaker.ca with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1D3aEg-0001BI-00; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:37:58 -0500
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:37:58 -0500
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-caldav] [Fwd: draft-reschke-http-addmember-00]
Message-ID: <20050222133758.GD4504@markbaker.ca>
References: <4214D227.9020607@gmx.de> <1108663634.11773.28.camel@sukothai.pingtel.com> <4214E4D0.80408@gmx.de> <1108670449.11773.33.camel@sukothai.pingtel.com> <4214F973.9060404@gmx.de> <1109017914.3811.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050221212838.GA8870@mail.shareable.org> <1109040989.3811.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050222034655.GC4504@markbaker.ca> <7d6e31bc68586bba82b76fd4fe4443ba@gbiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7d6e31bc68586bba82b76fd4fe4443ba@gbiv.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
X-Spam-Score: 0.05 () FORGED_RCVD_HELO
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1
Cc: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Calendar Access protocol based on WebDAV <ietf-caldav.osafoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-caldav>, <mailto:ietf-caldav-request@osafoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/ietf-caldav>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-caldav-request@osafoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-caldav>, <mailto:ietf-caldav-request@osafoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:38:38 -0000

On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:21:05AM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >IMO, it's because there are advantages to having messages which reflect
> >the expectations of their sender.
> 
> Umm, think about that sentence and you will find it has no content.
> Messages reflect the instruction of the sender.  POST does that.
>
> What you are really saying is that there are advantages to the
> client knowing the nature of a resource,
[lots of other stuff that I agree with snipped]

Ah, so you're saying that ADDMEMBER isn't uniform?  Sorry, I wasn't
able to extract that from your other messages.  But can you please
explain your reasoning behind that belief?  From my POV, the draft
defines ADDMEMBER semantics to be a small, (seemingly) uniform
adjustment upon PUT semantics.  Can you give an example of a resource
for which ADDMEMBER wouldn't make sense?

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email