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

Re: idempotence of POST

From: Mike Meyer <mwm@contessa.phone.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 23:07:41 PST
Message-Id: <19960918.780E278.14D7F@contessa.phone.net>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> -  GET does not (at least in implementations) support a body
> -  POST requests are assumed to not be 'reload'able safely without
>        asking the user

I've always had a problem with the opposite problem - that GETS can be
assumed to be safely reloadable. That means there's no way to
reference an object that isn't idempotent with a simple link, but I
have to use a form. This is sufficiently painfull that I've generally
ignored the issue, and just built scripts that do non-idempotent GETs
when I needed them (which has always been for intranet or similar
private usage, not for the general browing public).

So...

> c) allow the return value of POST to indicate that the request
>    can be repeated safely.
> Is this worth pursuing?

Yes, especially if the same mechanism is used to allow responses to
GET requests indicate that they are NOT safely reloadable.

Sorry - I don't have an idea to contribute for syntax either.

	<mike
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 1996 23:20:07 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:13 EDT