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 17:09:37 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199610101509.RAA02767@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
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/1746
Gavin Nicol:
>>    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.
>The I18N draft does not make POST use mandatory at all.

True, and I did not mean to imply it did.  If I understand the messages in
this thread correctly, the I18N draft make the uses of _method bodies_
necessary, and in current envirionents, that means using POST.

> A Safe header
>could equally well be used to indicate that a GET-with-body result
>can be cached/reused.

The existing Cache-Control header can already be used to indicate
cache/reuse for a GET-WITH-BODY.  

And if a new GET-WITH-BODY is defined, one would not need the Safe header
anymore, one could simply define GET-WITH-BODY as always safe.  However,
some HTML form hacks would be needed to provide the same level of downwards
compatibility with existing browsers that Safe can provide, for example

  <form action="..." method=post preferred_method=get-with-body>

So it boils down to cruft in HTTP vs. cruft in HTML.

Received on Thursday, 10 October 1996 19:09:28 UTC

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