- From: Mike Meyer <mwm@contessa.phone.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 23:07:41 PST
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> - GET does not (at least in implementations) support a body > - POST requests are assumed to not be 'reload'able safely without > asking the user I've always had a problem with the opposite problem - that GETS can be assumed to be safely reloadable. That means there's no way to reference an object that isn't idempotent with a simple link, but I have to use a form. This is sufficiently painfull that I've generally ignored the issue, and just built scripts that do non-idempotent GETs when I needed them (which has always been for intranet or similar private usage, not for the general browing public). So... > c) allow the return value of POST to indicate that the request > can be repeated safely. > Is this worth pursuing? Yes, especially if the same mechanism is used to allow responses to GET requests indicate that they are NOT safely reloadable. Sorry - I don't have an idea to contribute for syntax either. <mike
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 1996 23:20:07 UTC