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

Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 19:12:06 PDT
To: gjw@wnetc.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Sep27.191206pdt."2760"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1664
If we were to add an operation with transaction semantics, we wouldn't
call it "POST", and even if POST were to have transaction semantics,
it doesn't actually address the situations where one wants to do
REPOST even if the original POST succeeded, e.g., REPOST-ing a query
to a database, which is the original motivation for bringing up this

I initially posted a problem:

     Forms that want to posit side-effect free operations
      (e.g., database search), but don't want to use GET
      (e.g., because of URL-encoding mess)

and we were investigating several solutions to the problem.  Along the
way, it's nice if you can also solve other problems too, but
transaction-semantics POST isn't one of them.

If you do want to work on two-phase commit using HTTP, I think we'll
need a different working group.


Received on Friday, 27 September 1996 19:15:08 UTC

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