- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:59:31 +0200
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 09:41:58AM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote: > I wish that POST actually meant "here is something that changes state" and > GET meant "nope, of changing any state", but both are lies today as far as > I can tell. > > POST generally means : here is form input or here is a file, which > sometimes changes state and sometimes doesn't. For some developers it's even worse : "GET is cacheable while POST isn't" ! When you hear this you know you have a long road to go to help them fix their issues... > I believe this failure to be the result of not exposing rich enough (and > fully HTTP) semantics to the browser JavaScript and thus having forced the > web application writers to make do with what they had. > > I believe at this point that we should probably amend the spec to state the > common practice as a warning to anyone who makes assumptions about > idempotency. I think the current spec is already clear on this, but maybe at one point we should collect most common urban legends and drop them into a separate RFC. Willy
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 18:00:12 UTC