[Bug 10671] consider removing support for PUT and DELETE as form methods

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10671

--- Comment #7 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2010-10-07 13:08:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I posted here based on a suggestion to "explain in detail..." my example of a
> use case for PUT (http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20101006#l-662).

Ack. And just for reference; I opened this bug because the
(now-disabled/removed) implementation in FF4 had two bugs, one of which was
about a bad target URI being computed, the other one with respect to handling
redirects.

The former was a bug with respect to what HTML5 said, the latter isn't
specified in HTML5, so the code just reused XMLHttpRequest behavior (which I
think is broken as well). This made me nervous about this ever getting be done
*right*.

> > The tricky question is how to actually *use* PUT and DELETE with HTML forms.
> 
> I think the uses of PUT/DELETE in the four frameworks I cited is clear,
> correct?

As far as I can tell, these use POST to tunnel PUT/DELETE. There's nothing
wrong about that in principle.

Maybe the disagreement is based on where we come from? I'm using servers that
do support PUT and DELETE all the time. These servers send 200/201/204 with a
minimal status message when things go right. How are these supposed to be used
from an HTML form? Maybe they aren't supposed to?

> > The bug was raised because I think the spec (as it was back then) wasn't
> > specific enough to make this work, and thus early adoption (such as in FF4)
> > would make it very hard to do the right thing later on.
> 
> I understood that it was removed "until there's a clearer understanding
> about what it's good for." Have I misinterpreted your remark in the bug
> description?

I don't think so.

I think what's needed is a story about how PUT and DELETE is going to be used
in practice. In particular, whether servers that already support PUT and DELETE
need to be modified so this can be used from HTML forms; sending the request is
simple, but what's less clear is what response codes are supported and how they
affect the web application.

> I am familiar w/ this material. It's not clear to me (from your comment here)
> how the content in Part 6 affects my remarks on POST's cacheability per HTTP
> 1.1 vs. PUT and DELETE. More to the point, I see no changes in Part 2 
> (http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-11.html) that
> indicate a change in the cacheability of POST, PUT or DELETE. Can you help me
> make sure I understand your point here?

Work in progress...

There shouldn't be special cases except for GET/HEAD. See
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/139> (we may have to re-open
this issue, please follow up on the HTTP WG mailing list if you think more
needs to be done).

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 13:08:24 UTC