W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2007

Re: About comment #2

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:52:46 +0200
Message-ID: <467B013E.3090402@w3.org>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Thanks for this clarification. So in this case I agree with the 
rationale of BPWG (but note the typo as raised by CarlosI earlier in the 
thread). Still, one of the questions by Johannes was whether POST-based 
applications can be tested for mobileOK. Unless there are objections we 
should send this as a comment (in addition to the typo).


Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 06:21:00PM +0200, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> Moreover, I also agree with the intervention(**) that the assumption on 
>> the idempotent behaviour of GET vs POST is wrong. The effect of a given 
>> request is application specific rather than HTTP (or HTTPS).
> 
> It has always been the case that GET should only used for idempotent
> effects. It is explicitly stated in section 17.3.1 of the HTML 4.01
> specification. It is also explicitly stated in section 9.1.2 of the
> the HTTP 1.1 specification, RFC 2616.
> 
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 22:54:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:28 GMT