Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues) (Koen Holtman) wrote:
>Roy T. Fielding:
>>My response is that I don't care -- CGI authors will need to do at least
>>that much work, if not more, to ensure that the POST action is indeed
>>safely repost-able,
>Nonsense.  Many POST actions are safe by nature, and if POST is to be
>used for i18n, many more will be.  Examples are POSTs to search
>engines and to HTML checkers with a forms interface.

>>I have no interest in discussing any lesser issue 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't think i18n is a lesser issue.

>>were already defined to do the same thing.
>So tell me where to look for the existing definition of `rel=source',
>like I asked.  I might even copy it into the `safe: yes' ID.
>>I don't see any reason to standardize something that is no more than a
>>midnight hack, at least until someone convinces the midnight hackers
>>out there to implement it.  Either way, it isn't something I'm willing
>>to spend time on, nor is it necessary for me, or even the IETF, to approve
>>of something before it is implemented in practice.
>_Some_ headers can be deployed without IETF action, but `safe: yes' is
>not one of them.  As long as `safe: yes' is not approved by the IETF,
>any browser which uses it as a license to treat a POST as safe would
>be clearly non-conformant to the 1.1 protocol.

	Your last point, Koen, is the bottom line.  If Roy refuses
to make clear how his intellectual midnight hack could actually be
made to work in the real world, and no header like Safe is added to
the Standard, then even the vendors who don't really care about IETF
standards may be reluctant to deploy because of possible legal


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 1996 06:26:13 UTC