Re: GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in XForms [was: Issue request for the TAG: XForms]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 3:50:30 PM, Dan wrote:

DC> 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);
>> In particular,
>>   The HTTP "get" protocol is deprecated for use in form submission.
>>   Form authors should use "post" for greater compatibility.

DC> Just on the basis of what I can see here, that looks pretty bad,
DC> to me...


GET requires munging the form contents into a set of name,value pairs
and tacking them onto a URL to make an unweildy, I18N-hostile method
of concealing that content is actually being transferred to the

PUT allows a message body, so the XML instance which XForms builds up
is sent to the server as.... an XML instance. This seems to me to be
an eminently clear and logical way of going about things.

DC> With apologies for the lateness of this comment (I should
DC> have looked at XForms long ago...), I'm afraid
DC> I must say I find this aspect of the design unacceptable,
DC> on the grounds that...

DC>   "In HTTP, anything which does not have side-effects must use GET"
DC>         --

Conversely, things which do have side effects should not use GET.

GET is gor Getting and PUT is for Putting, and the form submission is
putting an xml document on a server, so PUT seems an entirely
appropriate choice.

DC> I'm not speaking for the TAG; we haven't discussed it
DC> as a group yet.


And, yes, i have been looking at and tracking XForms for a while,
since SVG-XForms integration is one of those things that won't happen
withot serious work.


Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 15:05:02 UTC