Hi Folks, In discussions about the SWORD 2.0 spec, a point has been raised regarding whether using 202 (Accepted) is actually a valid thing to do. Your thoughts on the following would be appreciated:
First, 202 (Accepted) is defined here: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html And it specifically says that this is for situations where a resource could not be created immediated (e.g. where resources are created by batch processing). SWORD 1.3, meanwhile, appears to use this to indicate that the resource has not yet /passed through review/ which is not quite the same thing. Contrast this with the definition of 201 (Created) in the same document. With the addition of the Statement, and the ability of the server to announce a sword:state to the client, I am considering dropping the use of 202 entirely, as it seems to bake into the API a specific notion of workflow which is both inappropriate as it is currently used and superseded by the sword:state. Any thoughts? Cheers, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d _______________________________________________ Sword-app-techadvisorypanel mailing list Sword-app-techadvisorypanel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sword-app-techadvisorypanel
