- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:01:05 +0200
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-23 17:53, James M Snell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> here are some ideas for what the WG could/should work on in the >> post-HTTP2-LC time: >> >> [snip] >> >> 3) New stuff >> [snip] >> - Another thing that comes up again and again is GET vs POST, and why there >> isn't a generic safe retrieval operation that takes a request body (describe >> the problem, document pros and cons, define an experimental new method?) >> > > +0.5 ... I'm not entirely convinced yet that this is necessary but I > have seen the use case crop up fairly often, particularly in API > discussions. A Payload-bearing GET (PGET?) would, at the very least, > make for a worthwhile experiment, if only to prove or disprove it's > utility. I'm certainly willing to help write something up. > ... Same here. It's one of these questions that come up every few weeks. It would be good to have a document that explains the situations, the advantages and drawbacks, and offers a new method to experiment with. >> - Header field syntax is something people continue to struggle with; maybe >> define how to use JSON in header fields to make things easier for new header >> field definitions >> > > +1 ... but I would frame the problem differently: Existing header > syntax is inefficient, inconsistent and incomplete at best. We need > efficient binary encodings, UTF-8 support and reliable extensibility. > Introducing JSON-based headers would be a mistake. Again, I'm willing > to continue the previous work I did around BOHE and help write this > up. I'm looking for something that works across all HTTP versions, so binary IMHO is out. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 16:01:35 UTC