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

RE: WhenToUseGet-7 comments

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:09:32 -0700
To: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020c01c37d36$157549e0$fe2b000a@beasys.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Ian B. Jacobs
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:34 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: 'Dan Connolly'; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WhenToUseGet-7 comments
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 11:22, David Orchard wrote:
> > > > I am trying to understand what it means to make a POST
> > > > operation safe.
> > >
> > > *mark*, not *make*. i.e. a POST operation might _be_
> > > safe (e.g. markup validator with file upload), but in the current
> > > HTTP protocol, the client has no way to know that it's
> > > safe. It has to assume that POST operations are unsafe.
> > >
> >
> > Yup.  Unless there's a marker of some kind.
>
> How would that be done in the current protocol?
> [That was my original question.]
>

I don't think it can.  Hence why at least a WSDL (metadata) marker would
tell a client that had the wsdl that it was safe.  I guess there could be
some new http header for POST that said "safe".

Most of the rationale that I hear for wanting a marker is for tooling usage,
and wsdl entirely meets that need.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 12:12:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:20 GMT