W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Site metadata; my preference

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:53:00 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90B6D@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <timbl@w3.org>, <distobj@acm.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org]
> Sent: 16 February, 2003 00:13
> To: Mark Baker; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Site metadata; my preference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
> To: <www-tag@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:03 PM
> Subject: Site metadata; my preference
> 
> 
> > I don't like MGET for the reasons explained in the TAG finding on
> > "URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET";
> > 
> >   "Safe operations (read, query, view, ask, lookup, etc.) on HTTP
> >    resources SHOULD be implemented using GET because that allows the
> >    result documents to be identified by URI, while using 
> POST does not."
> >     -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7#principles-summary
> 
> Well said.

Oh, come now. Were the authors of that statement thinking "GET vs. any
possible arbitrary verb that might every be added to HTTP" or "GET vs. POST"?!

I'm going to be hard to convince that it was the former.

And this argument is not even applicable against MGET because with
MGET documents *are* identified by URI!

 HTTP GET  {URI} -> resource
 HTTP MGET {URI} -> description

Now *how* does the above quote apply to that?! And since it *doesn't* apply,
how can it be "well said"?!

Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 01:53:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT