- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:40:02 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Daniel DuBois <dan@spyglass.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Daniel DuBois: > >At 05:09 PM 10/10/96 +0200, Koen Holtman wrote: >>some HTML form hacks would be needed to provide the same level of downwards >>compatibility with existing browsers that Safe can provide, for example >> >> <form action="..." method=post preferred_method=get-with-body> >> .... >> </form>. >>So it boils down to cruft in HTTP vs. cruft in HTML. > >Aren't proxies disallowed from forwarding methods they don't >understand? Not as far as I know. A proxy is always allowed to act as a gateway when getting an unknown method. >Wouldn't GETWITHBODY require a HTTP/1.2 (or rather, a 1.3, since servers >would be forced to accept it in 1.2, but clients would need to not send it >until 1.3, ala FullURL)? I don't think there are problems like this with GETWITHBODY. User agents which support it will send it to origin servers asking for it; there is no need for any party to look at version numbers. > Safe: yes could be sent today. > >----- >Daniel DuBois Koen.
Received on Thursday, 10 October 1996 09:47:07 UTC