W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

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

From: <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:44:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204161544.LAA12615@bual.research.att.com>
To: moore@cs.utk.edu, www-tag@w3.org
Cc: dorchard@bea.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Here's a quote from a random "web programming" book, which will
remain nameless:

 That's all the coverage we plan to give the GET method.  In fact, it's
 not recommended for most serious CGI programming, because it's limited
 in the number of characters it can safely accommodate for transfer
 between the browser and the host to an effective maximum of 255 characters
 (including the plus and equal signs used for URL encoding).  That
 may sound like a lot, but in a complex form, it's nowhere near enough!

 In the sections that follow, we'll take a gander at the POST HTTP
 method, preferred by most CGI programmers for serious data-passing,
 because it is not subject to the limitations that restrict GET's abilities to
 transfer data from the browser to the server (and on to your CGI programs).


With views like this having been very much in the ether for a long
time, it is hard to get the genie back in the bottle.  Since there
are no guarantees anyway, I think a reasonable middle ground for
web services would be to have a standard vocabulary for services
to characterize their semantics along many dimensions, including
the strict GET/POST distinction.  This would be useful across
bindings other than HTTP as well.

Mark A. Jones
AT&T Labs
Shannon Laboratory
Room 2A-02
180 Park Ave.
Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971

email: jones@research.att.com
phone: (973) 360-8326
  fax: (973) 236-6453
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 11:44:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT