W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Follow-up about PUT and DELETE in form methods

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:35:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE79AF1.40107@gmx.de>
To: Arthur Clifford <art@artspad.net>
CC: public-html-comments@w3.org
On 2011-12-13 19:10, Arthur Clifford wrote:
> If you are going to allow for a response that doesn't necessarily need to change the requesting page should there be an onDelete, onUpdate, and possibly onPut handler for a form tag? The page creator could always indicate via javascript a page to redirect to upon getting  a 202 response. One might also argue for the use of the same thing for post and get as well; onGet, onPut. This would also mean that javascript could replace contents of a div on a page based on the response if page developers wanted to create more 21st century web experiences that don't reload everything for something relevant to a section of a page.
>
> If you do that it would probably also nice to have javascript access to the object doing the transfer so that one could provide either a progress bar or busy indicator in the page. Something like getElementByID('myform').transfer.bytesSent, getElementByID('myform').transfer.bytesReceived, getElementByID('myform').transfer.complete, getElementByID('myform').transfer.response.
>
> This is probably dangerously close to implementing state in a web document, but you can't blame a guy for trying.
>
> Arthur Clifford
> ...

Not sure. My understanding of this proposal is that we want to allow 
more HTTP methods for use in forms without having to use script. 
Because, you know, once you add script to the mix you already can do 
everything you want using XHR.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 18:36:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 December 2011 18:36:02 GMT