- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:46:15 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 19.11.2020 um 04:39 schrieb James M Snell: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 12:18 Philippe Mougin <pmougin@acm.org > <mailto:pmougin@acm.org>> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > I don't support adoption because: > > > - The introduction provides an inaccurate and self contradictory > description of GET, as detailed in this message: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020JulSep/0198.html > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020JulSep/0198.html> > > > - The name of the method appears too restrictive, as a safe and > idempotent equivalent to POST, which is what the draft essentially > defines, would be useful beyond search operations. > > > To be clear, this is not intended as a safe, idempotent equivalent to > POST. It is intended specifically to cover search/query operations which > are often ambiguously represented as GET or POST. I'm not quite sure > what a safe idempotent equivalent to POST would even be, but this is not > it. > ... FWIW, I disagree with that. Ignore the method name for a moment, and what's left is a retrieval operation similar to GET which additionally takes the request payload into account. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2020 04:46:30 UTC