- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:06:19 -0700
- To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- CC: LMM@acm.org, www-tag@w3.org
Joshua Allen wrote: > > > HTTP GET should be "safe" (because there are systems > > and operations that rely on it being so) > > I would suggest clarifying this by adding the sentence: > > "Systems should NOT however, rely on HTTP GET to be 'safe'" > > Advising otherwise would be misleading, particularly in the case or URLs > with query strings. There is a reason that most web crawlers, many > other caches, etc. exclude URLs that have querystrings -- the fact is > that most systems do NOT depend on *all* GETs to be "safe". The whole point of mandating GET be safe is to allow systems to rely upon that knowledge. Search engines would not exist were it not for the fact that they presume GET safe. And Google, for one, does in fact spider and cache query-string based URIs: * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=RIAA+Boucher+dotcomscoop (consider the first link above) Paul Prescod
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 01:05:33 UTC