[Bug 10671] consider removing support for PUT and DELETE as form methods


--- Comment #6 from Mike Amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com> 2010-10-07 12:37:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> This seems to be a general comment about the goodness of PUT and DELETE vs
> doing everything with POST. I agree with this.

I posted here based on a suggestion to "explain in detail..." my example of a
use case for PUT (http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20101006#l-662).

> The tricky question is how to actually *use* PUT and DELETE with HTML forms.

I think the uses of PUT/DELETE in the four frameworks I cited is clear,

> The bug was raised because I think the spec (as it was back then) wasn't
> specific enough to make this work, and thus early adoption (such as in FF4)
> would make it very hard to do the right thing later on.

I understood that it was removed "until there's a clearer understanding
about what it's good for." Have I misinterpreted your remark in the bug

> With respect to cacheability: my understanding is that cacheability is the same
> for PUT, POST, DELETE and many other methods. You may want to have a look at
> HTTPbis, Part 6
> (http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-11.html)

I am familiar w/ this material. It's not clear to me (from your comment here)
how the content in Part 6 affects my remarks on POST's cacheability per HTTP
1.1 vs. PUT and DELETE. More to the point, I see no changes in Part 2 
(http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-11.html) that
indicate a change in the cacheability of POST, PUT or DELETE. Can you help me
make sure I understand your point here?

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 12:37:29 UTC