- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 17:09:37 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Gavin Nicol: > [Koen:] >> 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. > >The I18N draft does not make POST use mandatory at all. True, and I did not mean to imply it did. If I understand the messages in this thread correctly, the I18N draft make the uses of _method bodies_ necessary, and in current envirionents, that means using POST. > A Safe header >could equally well be used to indicate that a GET-with-body result >can be cached/reused. The existing Cache-Control header can already be used to indicate cache/reuse for a GET-WITH-BODY. And if a new GET-WITH-BODY is defined, one would not need the Safe header anymore, one could simply define GET-WITH-BODY as always safe. However, 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. Koen.
Received on Thursday, 10 October 1996 19:09:28 UTC