- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:20:03 -0800
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- CC: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>, w3c-forms@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org, i18n@w3.org
Martin Duerst wrote: > >... > > The fact that 'urlencoded' is the only thing that currently works > well with GET is largely a result of early incomplete implementations > and deployment dependencies. > > As far as I understand, there is nothing against GET with body, > and it should be seriously considered for XForms. I do not believe this is the case. The semantic of GET is "here is a URI identifying a resource. Please get it for me." A body makes no sense in that context. It would be analogous to sending a body with a SQL query. The fact that GET does not take a body forces information designers to organize their databases in an addressable form (as the relational model forces you into tables). Some people call this process "resource modeling." If people start sending GET bodies then they will not be encouraged (er, forced) to do proper resource modeling and the quantity of useful addresses on the Web will drop. If all you want is a cacheable query with a body, you can use POST. POST has explicit support for cached results. Paul Prescod
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 03:21:40 UTC