W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2006

Re: XMLHttpRequest request bodies (was: Re: Issue: request bodies)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:38:34 -0400
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0605151338y4cd26ca6tb32f58acd0533fcd@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>


On 5/14/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:15:36 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
> > On 4/22/06, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> >> Current implementations silently ignore the body in this case.
> >
> > FWIW, I decided to test this.  As it turns out, IE and Firefox on
> > WinXP pass bodies on all methods except GET (actually, I couldn't test
> > GET on IE - it would only send POST!), and Opera passes them only with
> > POST (and doesn't support PUT?!).  That's all the browsers I have
> > access to right now.
> >
> > http://www.markbaker.ca/2006/XHRTests/
> So I have no strong opinions about this, but my suggestion would be to say
> that the data passed to send() is always used as the entity body, if
> present, unless the method argument is GET in which case it's dropped. Any
> objections?

If you mean that we document the fact that some existing agents do
drop it, but not normatively prescribe that other agents should/must
do so, then that would work for me.  I mean, it's not like we're
seeing any behaviour which is fundamentally incompatible with this
approach, such as if some agents interpreted send() on GET to mean
that query parameters should be appended to the URI.

I think we should avoid outlawing GET bodies for the reasons Julian gave.

Received on Monday, 15 May 2006 20:38:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:21 UTC