- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:57:39 -0500 (EST)
- To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> wrote: >- GET-with-body or idempotent-POST > Discussed on the working group; there seems to be enough > demand, but not a lot of clarity on the solution. > *** I'd like a brief note from you about your opinion, > especially if you haven't responded on this before. With respect to the issue which initially motivated this discussion: How can POST be made know as idempotent to a client for more efficient and effect history management when that METHOD is used in FORMs to facilitate i18n? the header suggestion (e.g. Idempotent: yes | no) has the benefit that CGI scripts can include it as META tag, without need to worry that older servers or clients which don't yet recognize/handle it might do something totally inappropriate. The problem, though, is that it "begs" to be used for GET as well. Is there any way to use that header approach, but preclude it's use with GET and HEAD? Expanding the syntax for Cache-Control values seems like a feasible, but more "complicated" approach (a nice, simple Idempotent: yes | no with exclusion of GET and HEAD is more appealing, IMHO, and I anticipate that "If you do it, they will come."). Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 1996 07:07:42 UTC