W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

Re: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:31:09 -0600 (MDT)
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10204181013040.640-100000@measurement-factory.com>

"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:

> 3. I encourage interested parties in the other groups to respond
> to this issue.  This is one of the first TAG findings, and has
> potential significant ramifications to the web services
> architecture.  Formal - as suggested in item #2 - and personal
> discussions - this item - should help foster education and
> consensus that have so far been illusive.

W3C QA working group is developing a collection of "Quality tips for
Webmasters". One of the tips on the to-do list is "GET versus POST":
  http://www.w3.org/2001/06tips/Overview.html

There is a related posting on W3C QA working group that will
definitely not help to resolve the conflicts, but it at least points
out the same HTTP terminology bugs that have now migrated to TAG's
"DRAFT Findings on Safe Methods":

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Apr/0014.html

The conclusion of that rather long posting is quoted below:

  In general, I find that the desire to make Web safe and predictable
  for the user somehow resulted in rigid requirements on HTTP methods
  and their interaction with HTML. The goal (safe and predictable Web)
  can be achieved in many ways. IMO, trying to severely restrict HTTP
  and HTML use is a waste of effort because it handicaps Web site
  authors and they would simply ignore these kinds of tips. The Web
  sites I visit seem to support this theory (well, at least they do not
  contradict it).

  It is the _design_ of the Web site that should make that site safe and
  predictable, and not whether the author uses GET or POST!
  
  Many attribute success of the Internet to the original intention to
  provide general communication mechanisms without really knowing (or
  restricting) how those mechanisms would be used. This is related to
  the famous end-to-end argument. It seems to me that the tips like
  the above are moving us in the opposite direction: restricting
  protocol use in hope that applications become better.

$0.02,

Alex.
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 12:31:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT