W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: HTTP working group status & issues (please reply)

From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:57:39 -0500 (EST)
To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <01I9UPP68VDM0078LQ@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1614
Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> wrote:
>- GET-with-body or idempotent-POST
>  Discussed on the working group; there seems to be enough
>  demand, but not a lot of clarity on the solution.
>  *** I'd like a brief note from you about your opinion,
>      especially if you haven't responded on this before.

	With respect to the issue which initially motivated this

	How can POST be made know as idempotent to a client for more
	efficient and effect history management when that METHOD is
	used in FORMs to facilitate i18n?

the header suggestion (e.g. Idempotent: yes | no) has the benefit that
CGI scripts can include it as META tag, without need to worry that
older servers or clients which don't yet recognize/handle it might
do something totally inappropriate.  The problem, though, is that it
"begs" to be used for GET as well.  Is there any way to use that header
approach, but preclude it's use with GET and HEAD?  Expanding the syntax
for Cache-Control values seems like a feasible, but more "complicated"
approach (a nice, simple Idempotent: yes | no with exclusion of
GET and HEAD is more appealing, IMHO, and I anticipate that "If you
do it, they will come.").


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 1996 07:07:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:20 UTC