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

RE: No consensus on draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 23:08:39 -0700
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c1e9c4$2841fe80$6ace8642@larrypad>
> Yes.  And you get the web-architectural benefits of GET.
> Is it worth it?  Not sure.  But nobody would be required to
> use the GET mechanism unless they thought the benefits of
> caching and bookmarking and direct human access and so on
> were worth the effort.  I still think the implementation effort
> on the server side is trivial.

You can't have interoperability if the client wants to
use GET but the server doesn't support it. So it can't
be optional for both client and server. It makes no sense
for it to be optional for the server (how would the client
know whether or not GET was supported?); if it's optional
for the client, then it must be mandatory for the server.


> Granted.  But the 'Web' in 'Web Services' presumably is the Web.

"the Web" as in "the Web as it actually exists".

If you want to support a bookmarkable result from
a POST, you'd be better off supplying a content-location
with the response.

This could be provided whether or not the method
was GET.
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 02:09:25 GMT

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