- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:01:24 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: >> * "It should be possible to issue methods other than GET to the server, >> such as POST and DELETE." Add to this: "The solution must not unduly >> penalise use of methods other than GET, e.g., with performance >> degradation. Likewise, it must not penalise use of a particular style of >> URI, or the use of a large number of URIs." > > I don't particularly agree. If we can optimise GET even more than the > others, then good, but we shouldn't cripple our design for GET just > because we can't get the other methods to be as efficient. > > In conclusion, I am strongly opposed to removing the first requirement > above, and strongly against changing the second requirement above. I think we're reading different things into this, not sure which one Mark meant. If it is meant as "non-GET should not be penalized more than GET" Then I disagree with having that as requirement. If it was meant as "don't unduly penalize non-GET requests" Then I agree with that but would add that we also shouldn't unduly penalize GET requests, thus simplifying it to "don't unduly penalize requests" / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 11:01:32 UTC