Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote:
On 02/04/2011, at 5:11 PM, Nathan wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
On 02.04.2011 17:32, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote:
I think PUT and DELETE should follow POST in regards to the action URI. Personally i'm
not too keen on GETs producing URIs and would prefer there to be at least the option of
embedding the form data. Maybe this could be specified as a new encType -
"text/uri" or somelike...
why would the need for a template arise? to PUT to a resource implies the
resource already exists, it can be used as a creational operation as described
in the example but that would seem to be leeking server-side implementation
details (the id) into the client and introduce coupling.
There are use cases for PUT-to-create. Namely, when you *want* to enable the
client to name the resource.
Yes, or when you (/server) want to specify/suggest where the resource should be
PUT to within the HTML (after all, any predetermined value in the form @action
for PUT will be precisely that).
I think the focus on existing servers and services is unhelpful for the
specification of new features. Of course they won't be supported
retrospectively but it's about allowing new services to function fully.
That is true.
What I want to avoid though is that a server can't support PUT for both forms
and other kinds of clients on the same URI.
Likewise, I strongly feel that some common use cases for PUT would be say:
1) coupling <form>, <input type="file"> and <progress> together in some way to
allow somebody to say PUT an image/jpeg (with the correct Content-Type value)
2) PUTting some text/* or application/* specified in a <textarea> to a
location, again with the correct Content-Type set.
If those are supported then all manner of clever domain specific server side
juggling of representations can be done for those that want to try and juggle
between application/x-form-urlencoded and say application/json.
I'd suggest that it would be easy to foresee a simple apache mod that enabled
simple PUTting and DELETEing on resources, storing the representations as
received, and that any efforts to support either PUT or DELETE should be
focussed towards something people can actually use, out of the box, without any
complex code implementation or domain specific understanding of experimental
media types like application/x-form-urlencoded or POST centric ones like
multipart/form-data.
Best,
Nathan
I think operating over files is a great example of how useful these operations
can be and frames the problem into a far more real-world scenario for html over
the way these operations are usually discussed in terms of XML and business
processing.
I'm not sure if forms can support other media type encodings. The file input can specify an 'accept' attribute but i don't even think this would be sent with the file data under normal form encodings.
Which begs the question, is <form> even the correct approach? It appears
to me that the fucntionality of forms will have to be special cased and
effectively constrained just to do PUT (only certain elements make sense
or would have a use, arguably) or DELETE (no elements really make any
sense).
So perhaps, fresh eyes and a new approach, new elements, may be in
order. That is, if it's not deemed that the use cases are so different
and complicated that it infact makes more sense to just use scripting
and xhr!
Best,
Nathan
