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

REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)

From: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 23:24:34 +0200
Message-Id: <199609272124.XAA16675@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
To: MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1660
% I was imagining a new method, REPOST, whose semantics are "post of
% data previously posted". It could be used to post queries again, but
% also in situations where the success of an original POST might be
% uncertain, e.g., connection times out.

But does it mean that the writer of the page should guess in advance whether
there could be such problems, or it is the browser which looks at the POST
method and decides to try and REPOST?

Surely I am missing the point, but I find it funny to write a method with
the same syntax of an existing one - it's something like having a CONDGET
instead of the conditional GET we are used to.

I like the proposal of Foteos to have an explicit header to say that an
instance of POST should be considered as idempotent. But I must confess
that I am still trying to see how it can work. The world was much simpler
the good old days in which GETs were meant to be idempotent and POSTs not,
before all of these counters and queries.

Received on Friday, 27 September 1996 14:27:32 UTC

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