On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 15:49, Ian Bicking wrote: > To me that doesn't seem to make sense. All the actions in WebDAV are > represented as methods (GET, COPY, etc). In a browser it's different -- > the methods are really only GET and POST, which are overloaded with > other semantics anyway. So you have to represent the action > differently, basically through variables. > > I think it makes most sense to only have the resource name in the URL, > i.e., /articles/500. Or maybe /article-500, since the "articles" > collection is not really that meaningful, it only says what "500" is > supposed to refer to. I'm not sure which one is best.
/articles/ does make sense as an index page that will display a list of available articles or allow you to search for one. > OTOH, both actions might be possible, with different > semantics That is too spooky. I like /articles/500/?action=delete > To me, the Zope style of mixing methods and subitems doesn't seem right > -- it matches Python (which doesn't distinguish between methods and > instance variables), but I don't think it works with URLs. The whole > point of variables is to pass extra information in addition to the > identifier for the resource you are requesting. I agree. GET should be idempotent unless there is a clear indication otherwise such as "/?action=this+will+change+your+document+forever" or "/?bill=charge+my+visa&amount=5+zillion+dollars" (CountVisits is OK, because the intent is clear from the content.) > >From the point of view of HTTP, GET is idempotent and "always" just > > returns the present state of the URI. But on the server side, what > > constitutes the present state of the URI, and *how* it's constituted, > > is (or can be, anyway) URI-specific, and as far as I can tell that > > goes for WebDAV methods, too. > > I know, I'm confused about this too -- I suppose you could return and > accept things differently based on the user agent. I.e., Dreamweaver > will get a raw HTML page, while a browser would get the page with > dynamically-created headers and whatnot. No. If a designer wants to use Dreamweaver to edit the "raw" page, he would use WebDAV through mod_dav to edit the layout and skins (templates) available through a very different URI. If a user wants to edit the document, he can connect a WebDAV folder to "My Web Places" and edit the files in Word if he wants to. > > I think that Zope's use of WebDAV should be revealing for how Webware > > might want to use it. > > Perhaps... but Zope has a strong object model which makes a lot of these > decisions easy. Webware doesn't have an object model (which is what I > want anyway). Down with Acquisition! We want Control! We want Control! <g,d,&r> 8-) _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
