Re: Proposal for ... POST when dealing with large numbers of URIs

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:10:15 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> I'd rather we didn't require the slash. Otherwise, using this header  
> wouldn't work with URLs of simple CGI scripts. For example:
>
>     http://example.com/demo.cgi
>
> This can support both being used as a GET or POST target, as well as  
> being used with a path:
>
>     http://example.com/demo.cgi/user/54
>
> It would be sad to require people to say:
>
>    http://example.com/demo.cgi/
>
> ...in such cases.

For now the slash is not required but is used for comparison purposes. I  
suggest we leave it this way unless someone comes up with a viable  
scenario on what could go wrong given that there are use cases for the  
current solution as Ian indicated above.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Sunday, 10 February 2008 12:09:53 UTC