Re: Proposed HTTP SEARCH method update

What I was trying to illustrate is that DELETE is also a function and it hasn’t turned the web into RPC.  Why have RPC methods like PATCH PUT and DELETE?

I don’t see how SEARCH “hurts” the web. If GET is supposed to be a web linkable resource and not one with embedded RPC functions like SEARCH or for that matter delete (e.g. GET In a hypermedia web, don’t we want to keep GET from being overloaded with functions like search?



> On May 19, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Zhong Yu <> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Phil Hunt <> wrote:
>> Ok. I’ll bite. Why doesn’t DELETE do the same thing?
> Just today, I saw a case [1] where a popular client sends body in
> DELETE, and a popular server outright rejects DELETE with body.
> In a messy situation like this, we would naturally seek an authority
> or an arbitrator. However, the good people of this working group do
> not seem to be interested in playing that role. They are more
> interested in documenting the best practice that maximize
> interoperability. They will give advices and recommendations, but they
> are not here to issue rulings or give permissions.
> That's probably the misunderstanding here by people who want GET with
> body - they think this working group can be an authority that makes it
> happen.
> Therefore I think this topic (GET+body) is out of the scope. You do
> not need to seek permission from the working group, you will not get
> any. You will not get an opposite "decree" either. You can go ahead
> and do it, against all advices, and if it becomes a huge success, the
> working group will accept the reality and document it down.
> [1]
> Zhong Yu

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 04:05:17 UTC