Re: Background information on GET and XForms (was: GET should be encouraged...) from Gavin Thomas Nicol on 2002-01-29 (www-tag@w3.org from January 2002)

From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:25:36 -0500
To: w3c-forms@w3.org
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, i18n@w3.org
Message-Id: <E16VSk1-0000WY-00@server2000.ebizhostingsolutions.com>

On Monday 28 January 2002 03:20 am, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > 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. 

If what you claim is true, GET+URL-encoding shouldn't be allowed 
either... the queries should be mapped into the URI space instead. 

The fact is that HTTP has pretty much always *allowed* a body on a 
GET, and still does. Using the body actually simplifies many things.

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 02:33:00 UTC