Re: PaceServiceError comments

[Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > This violates a SHOULD-level recommendation. 
>
>
> Violation of a SHOULD is not always a problem ime - that's why it's a 
> SHOULD.

The safeness of GET is also a SHOULD, and dynamic resources with side 
effects on GET are *explicitly* mentioned.
My point is that there is no correct status code to return from the 
POST. The choice is not as obvious as ReST dogma would have it, but I'll 
address that in a different thread.

> > Is this paragraph utter nonsense? This would seem to indicate that 
> > GETs need
> > not be side-effect free, only that the user has committed to nothing by
> > sending the request. By sending a request to the ErrorURI, what has 
> > the user
> > committed to that exceeds a normal GET request?
>
> Sure, but work with me here. You asked for a POST example - I gave it 
> - now you're back to GET.

Oh, you don't have to answer this one. :)

Can anyone give an example of a valid use case for the last paragraph of 
Section 9.1.1?

Robert Sayre

[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9