- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:23:03 -0800
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Mike Dierken <mike@dataconcert.com>, w3c-forms@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > >... > > In the future, this does call for a new GET-with-body or QUERY or whatever > you like to call it, which would be defined as an operation without side > effects > (a function) of both the URI and the message body. I asked Mark Baker for this method six months ago but I am now ambivalent about it. POST can be used in a caching manner. If you add GET-with-body you will find that people who do not want to resource model will use GET-with-body without understanding why they SHOULD resource model their domain into standard GET. For example: > What rammifications does this have on the XForms deprecation of GET? > > I concur that QUERY is what XForms needs Probably 1 in every 100 side-effect-free XForms would appropriately use GET-with-body but already people are talking about using only GET-with-body for XForms, even though it doesn't even exist yet!!! GET-with-body is going to increase the confusion about which method to choose for a tiny subset of all problems. It is arguable whether the benefit is worth it. > (I prefer QUERY to an adaptation of GET, myself). Today we express queries as GETs in most circumstances (after all, search engines accept queries). That's a wonderful thing. The new method (if any) should not be called QUERY. Perhaps FUNCTION. Paul Prescod
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 17:24:41 UTC