- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:47:08 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: dawg comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>, dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Mark Baker wrote: > > In the HTTP binding part of the protocol[1], the advice as to whether > or not a URI serialization for the query is suitable is given as; > > "The GET binding should be used except in cases where the URL-encoded > query exceeds practicable limits, in which case the POST binding > should be used." > > Due to the considerations in the "security" section about possible > denial-of-service attacks, combined with the assumed "do no harm" > (safety) aspect of GET, I think it's quite reasonable for a service > provider not to expose potentially expensive queries via URI+GET. > > I still like the idea of a SHOULD-level requirement for using URIs > though, so perhaps something like this could be said; > > "The GET binding SHOULD be used except in the following cases, in > which case the POST binding SHOULD be used; > > o where the URL-encoded query exceeds practicable length limits > o where the cost of processing the query may be prohibitive (see > Section 3.1, "Security")" We just voted to publish a new LC protocol document. But I favor this patch, so I'll see if I can get it worked into this LC cycle. If not, I suspect it could appear later. At least, I'd favor it so appearing. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 16:47:22 UTC