Mention PUT in suggested response status codes

Also fixed a small typo for 200 / GET status code description.  
Hmm. This is tricky. We mostly just used PATCH only in the api a lot of this was based on. So it depends on how you use PUT. If it is used to replace an existing entity I would imagine it would fall to the 200/202 depending on if it was synchronous, but probably not 201. I would only really expect 201 in the case where you are creating a new record while also specifying the primary key (instead of allowing it to be generated as in POST).

Most of the time it seems like POST with generated ID and/or PATCH of some attributes instead of a total replacement are more desirable. Does that make sense? I would agree that where you added PUT fits for the use cases I describe above, but I guess I worry that perhaps those cases could often be better served by other verbs (so perhaps it is best not to recommend them more broadly without explaining the context). What do you think?