4090Re: [rest-discuss] Implementing MONITOR
- Jan 2, 2004Jan Algermissen wrote:
>Well, I think that POST is supposed to be much more flexible than that. But
> Seth Johnson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@...>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:30:55 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] Implementing MONITOR
> > So the monitored resource would have to only POST existing
> > standard "content types?"
> Hmm...yes. what is the problem with this? Or in other words: why
> is this a problem in the case of MONITOR but not a problem for
> the other methods?
> Or am I misunderstanding your point?
I'm not sure it matters, after all.
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
- << Previous post in topic