W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

intent of POST

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:46:22 PST
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Jan10.004635pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
With regard to the wording:

> # The URI in a POST request identifies the resource that will handle
> # the enclosed entity as data to be processed, e.g., values from a
> # form that has been filled out.

Bob Jernigan wrote:

> This view seems to represent a Mosaic (incl derivatives)-centric
> view of clients on the Web.  In our Intranet environment, the main
> client is MS-Excel with appropriate add-ins for http.

Isn't MS-Excel a kind of form?

However, all of this reminds me that there is an unfortunate
intertwining of methods and URL schemes. We might not want to add new
methods to HTTP if those methods might not be representable in other
protocols, less we make other-protocol gateways not have an obvious
implementation. 

URL schemes and their methods:

http:  GET, PUT, POST
ftp:   GET, PUT
mailto: GET, POST
telnet: GET(?)
wais:  GET
news: GET (POST?) 
nttp: GET

and HEAD means first-part-of-GET

If you add other methods, you might have to at least define whether
proxies are expected to implement any protocols for those other
methods.
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 1996 00:51:08 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:43 EDT