W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1996

Re: draft-holtman-http-safe-00.txt

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:40:02 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199610101640.SAA12288@wsooti11.win.tue.nl>
To: Daniel DuBois <dan@spyglass.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/1748
Daniel DuBois:
>At 05:09 PM 10/10/96 +0200, Koen Holtman wrote:
>>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>
>>   ....
>>  </form>.
>>So it boils down to cruft in HTTP vs. cruft in HTML.
>Aren't proxies disallowed from forwarding methods they don't

Not as far as I know.  A proxy is always allowed to act as a gateway
when getting an unknown method.

>Wouldn't GETWITHBODY require a HTTP/1.2 (or rather, a 1.3, since servers
>would be forced to accept it in 1.2, but clients would need to not send it
>until 1.3, ala FullURL)?

I don't think there are problems like this with GETWITHBODY.  User
agents which support it will send it to origin servers asking for it;
there is no need for any party to look at version numbers.

>  Safe: yes could be sent today.
>Daniel DuBois

Received on Thursday, 10 October 1996 09:47:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:00 UTC