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

Charles, 

Have you read the new Annotea draft protocol [1]? This is not clear
from your message.

It actually documents what you're proposing and Appendix B [2] explains
why we were using POST. In a previous message we asked developers
for feedback wrt making PUT the prefered practice and dropping
altogether POST for updating annotations.

-jose

On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 09:05:53PM -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> 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.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219#PostUpdate