Re: [FYI]: Updated the Amaya annotation update protocol

Hi,

I prefer to have the HTTP semantics less ambiguous. If a PUT always means
updating an existing thing, and a POST always means creating a new one, then
it is possible to create simpler servers - if they have to check the HTTP
protocol used and the message on the wire it introduces complexity and I
don't see any value in it.

Backwards compatibility with systems that don't do PUT seems a backwards step
given that Annotea is a new system anyway, and I would prefer to remove such
complications.

just my 2 cents

Chaals

(By the way I hope to have ruby command-line annotools that do replies next
week. On the one hand they should only take an hour to develop from teh
existing annotools at the outside. On the other hand I have a lot of things
to do that only take an hour...)


On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Jose Kahan wrote:

>
>Following the revision of the Annotea protocol, I modified the
>implementation of the annotation update protocol to use PUT rather
>than POST. The change is commited to CVS.
>
>I haven'y yet removed the code to use POST. I can leave it there and
>make its use optional if the other Annotea client developers think
>it's good to keep both protocols for any given issue.
>
>-jose
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France