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

Re: draft-holtman-http-safe-00.txt

From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:06:57 -0500 (EST)
To: dan@spyglass.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <01IAH8T4V5KY00BIOP@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
Daniel DuBois <dan@spyglass.com> wrote:
>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?
>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)?  Safe: yes could be sent today.

	What the GETwithBody would be replacing in this discussion is
not just any GET, but ones which would otherwise have a ?searchpart.

	The HTTP/1.1 draft states that Cache-Control and Expires headers
*can* be used to yield and regulate caching of replies from POST requests.
What exactly is still being sought via a GETwithBodyInsteadOfSearchpart
that can't be achieved via a POST with "Safe: yes" and Cache-Control/Expires
headers?  Are there *any* headers or procedures which can't be made to treat
a POST with "Safe: yes" as, in effect, a GETwithBodyInsteadOfSearchpart?

				Fote

=========================================================================
 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
=========================================================================
Received on Thursday, 10 October 1996 10:20:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:15 EDT