Re: draft-holtman-http-safe-00.txt (Koen Holtman) wrote:
>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.

	A minor change in wording to include reference to
"multipart/form-data", as in i18n, which does require POST, 
might be helpful.

	Please, by no means retract the proposal!

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

Received on Thursday, 10 October 1996 07:40:35 UTC