- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 23 Jan 2002 08:50:30 -0600
- To: www-forms-editor@w3.org
- Cc: "\\ Barstow Art ""(NMP/Boston)\\" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, www-tag@w3.org, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 17:21, Mark Baker wrote: > Since somebody else has brought up XForms, I'd like to point out the > following section (as discovered by Paul Prescod); > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/slice4.html#evt-submit > > In particular, > > The HTTP "get" protocol is deprecated for use in form submission. > Form authors should use "post" for greater compatibility. Just on the basis of what I can see here, that looks pretty bad, to me... > I don't have an issue with XForms not supporting GET (though once it's > there, I wonder why you'd want to get rid of it), but I do have an > issue if it's deprecating GET *and* claiming to be able to replace > HTML forms; > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2002Jan/0092.html > > The thread in which this is still being discussed is; > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2002Jan/thread.html#81 I see that XForms 1.0 is in last call... http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xforms-20020118/ comments are due 22 February 2002; reviewing the archive of comments submitted to the feedback address, I don't see this in there. With apologies for the lateness of this comment (I should have looked at XForms long ago...), I'm afraid I must say I find this aspect of the design unacceptable, on the grounds that... "In HTTP, anything which does not have side-effects must use GET" -- http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#state I agree with Paul Prescod's argument in, e.g., http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2002Jan/0119.html I'm not speaking for the TAG; we haven't discussed it as a group yet. > FWIW, I don't think this requires TAG attention yet, but if any of the > TAG members are looking at XForms anyhow ... > > MB -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 10:41:27 UTC