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

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

From: Y. John Jiang <yjj@rad.balink.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:53:47 -0400
Message-Id: <9609271153.ZM6636@orchid.rad.balink.com>
To: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1655
On Sep 27,  1:10pm, Maurizio Codogno wrote:
> Subject: Re: HTTP working group status & issues (please reply)
> % - 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.
> I personally don't like very much an idempotent-POST: if I have an
> incremental database, POSTing twice should result in two record added.

Agree.  POST is intended to have something posted/added to the
server content.  A cache should never intercept such a request
and acts on behalf of the server.  If POST is used to give fairly
static responses, it's rather a misuse of the method, and the
protocol should not be modified to accomodate the misuse.

> Netscape "repost form data?" checkbox is however a good idea, IMO, and
> maybe it could be further developed to content everybody.

This deals with the browser caching.  But the general concern is
the caching of proxy server.

Received on Friday, 27 September 1996 09:00:32 UTC

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