Skip to content

Conversation

@RubenVerborgh
Copy link
Contributor

@RubenVerborgh RubenVerborgh commented May 12, 2021

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@csarven csarven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think mention of client can be omitted altogether. Also focus on effective request URI.

Changing the requirement's focus (from clients) to servers is perhaps most useful for PATCH because it changes resource creation from MAY (RFC5789) to MUST. For PUT and POST, the requirement is actually not needed because it is already covered by RFC 7231.

RubenVerborgh and others added 2 commits May 12, 2021 23:17
Co-authored-by: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Co-authored-by: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
@RubenVerborgh RubenVerborgh requested a review from csarven May 12, 2021 21:18
@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented May 12, 2021

Should we still guide (informative/note) the clients along the lines of:

Clients can use PUT and PATCH requests to assign a URI to a resource. Clients can use POST requests to have the server assign a URI to a resource.

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented May 12, 2021

Added commit. Have a look. Interesting that GitHub doesn't allow me to request a review from you (sort of obviously).

@csarven csarven merged commit 6b7c767 into main May 13, 2021
@csarven csarven deleted the fix/resource-creation branch May 13, 2021 10:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

category: editorial Concerns phrasing/wording

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants