W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: usability of 100-continue, was: HTTP2 Expression of Interest : Squid

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:59:31 +0200
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20120720175931.GK24195@1wt.eu>
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 09:41:58AM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
> I wish that POST actually meant "here is something that changes state" and
> GET meant "nope,  of changing any state", but both are lies today as far as
> I can tell.
> 
> POST generally means : here is  form input or here is a file, which
> sometimes changes state and sometimes doesn't.

For some developers it's even worse : "GET is cacheable while POST isn't" !
When you hear this you know you have a long road to go to help them fix
their issues...

> I believe this failure to be the result of not exposing rich enough (and
> fully HTTP) semantics to the browser JavaScript and thus having forced the
> web application writers to make do with what they had.
> 
> I believe at this point that we should probably amend the spec to state the
> common practice as a warning to anyone who makes assumptions about
> idempotency.

I think the current spec is already clear on this, but maybe at one point
we should collect most common urban legends and drop them into a separate
RFC.

Willy
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 18:00:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 July 2012 18:00:19 GMT