- From: Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:46:56 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Hi! I would prefer if GET semantics get extended. This is already something some already use (e.g., ElasticSearch). Maybe we just have to find a way for client/server/caches to opt-in or declare opt-in. As a compromise, I like this proposal as well. But I would propose that we do not extend existing SEARCH verb but instead standardize a new QUERY verb. Maybe picking a name is bikesheding, but I find both SEARCH and REPORT mentioning until now too semantically specific. To me this is really like GET, just with payload, which means instead of GETting a resource based on URI, we are QUERYing it because we need more than just an URI for the query. I strongly feel that the response should be cacheable. Otherwise why not just use POST? Mitar On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:11 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > As discussed in the October 202 Interim, this is a Call for Adoption for the HTTP SEARCH method draft: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-search-method-02 > > Please indicate whether you support adoption in response to this e-mail; information about intent to implement (or use) it is also useful. > > The Call for Adoption will end on 18 November 2020. > > Cheers, > > Mark and Tommy > > -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2020 02:47:21 UTC