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

Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE

From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:58:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPW_8m7L6J=e+G6XDWkaANm5VbxsyOnR-fSJCy0zAx7QTBPyUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Julian:

I while back, I posted a page that, I think, covers your questions:
http://amundsen.com/examples/put-delete-forms/

I think this addresses the questions you raise.

It also iincludes some "optional" stuff that others brought up at the time
of the posting.

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me




On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 16:51, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2011-11-30 22:19, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>
>> Can we revisit the decision to remove the PUT and DELETE verbs from HTML5.
>>
>> The original rationale for removing it was a lack of use-cases[1], but
>> that ticket has since grown a number of use-cases. In particular, my
>> work with Rails, which involves us faking PUT and DELETE forms[2], is a
>> good example of a large number of people wanting this feature and having
>> to apply hacks to get it.
>> ...
>>
>
> The problem isn't a lack of use cases but a lack of use cases with a
> precise description about how the feature is going to work.
>
> Examples would help a lot.
>
> Questions that need to be answered are:
>
> - which type of parameter encoding for each method
>
> - which content types to support
>
> - considerations about how this works cross-origin
>
> - discussion how response codes, response payloads etc drive what the
> browser is going to do (think 204 on DELETE, 201 on PUT, etc etc)
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 21:58:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:41 GMT