W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: draft-holtman-http-safe-01.txt

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@appliedtheory.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:16:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199703191916.OAA03197@pat.appliedtheory.com>
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: mcmanus@appliedtheory.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2756
In a previous episode David W. Morris said...

:: What would your reaction be to including the safe/uahint header on the
:: POST request? 

Wouldn't that be a problem for 1.0 servers/cgis who would ignore the safe
requirement and process the non safe post anyhow? 

I do believe that control over the issue belongs on the request side
to maintain symmetry with the way it is now with GET and POST.. I
almost don't see an alternative to a new method (back to
GETWBODY). Generally what I'm getting at is the UA has a right to
dictate whether changes may be made or "I'm just browsing".. (the
server of course can respond with "get out of here!" if it's process
requires mores than browsing type permission.)

My suspicion is that this really should be deferred to 1.2 so a new
method can be added.


Patrick R. McManus - Applied Theory Communications -	Software Engineering
http://pat.appliedtheory.com/~mcmanus			Programmer Analyst
*** - You Kill Nostalgia, Xenophobic Fears. It's Now or Neverland. - ***
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 1997 11:17:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC