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

Re: draft-holtman-http-safe-00.txt

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:33:32 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199610101133.NAA05852@wsooti09.win.tue.nl>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1735
Roy T. Fielding:
>Clarification ...
>>  Many content authors have managed to avoid the confirmation dialog
>>  problem by using GETs for form submission instead of safe POSTs.
>>  However, this escape is not possible for forms
>>     a) which are (sometimes) used to submit large amounts of data
>>     b) which are (sometimes) used to submit data in a charset other
>>        than ISO-8859-1.
>>  Case b) will be the increasingly common; web internationalization [2]
>>  makes it necessary to use the POST method for form submission.
>This is not true.  

Quoting from section 5.2 of [2] (draft-ietf-html-i18n-05.txt):

   The best solution is to use the "multipart/form-data" media type
   described in [RFC1867] with the POST method of form submission.

Do you disagree with draft-ietf-html-i18n-05.txt, or with my
interpretation of it?  I can't really tell from your comments.

I have not read all of draft-ietf-html-i18n-05.txt, so I may be
missing something, but the quote above seems quite clear.  POSTs are
the route draft-ietf-html-i18n-05.txt seems to be taking, and
draft-ietf-html-i18n-05.txt is approved as a proposed standard.  

My proposal attempts to identify and clear away an obstacle to the
deployment of draft-ietf-html-i18n-05.txt.  If you can convince me it
does not, I will retract my proposal.

> ...Roy T. Fielding

Received on Thursday, 10 October 1996 04:39:15 UTC

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