W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2002

RE: updated findings on whenToUseGet

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 09:15:56 -0700
To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000701c1fe87$4f6936e0$6ace8642@larrypad>
The updated "finding" still seems to assume that "GET with
body" has something to do with solving the problem of insuring
that important resources should be accessible via a URL. But
if the data to access the resource is in the body (or in any headers
or anywhere other than the URL itself), then the goal isn't
accomplished. There's no difference between POST and GET-with-body
as far as accomplishing the stated objective.


>    * All important resources should be identifiable by URI.
> +   
> +    In particular
> +   
> +      + using GET for safe operations (read, query, view, ask,
lookup, ...) on
> +        HTTP resources makes them identifyable by URI, while using
POST does
> +        not


Does not what? Maybe I am not reading your 'diff' notation correctly.


>      The content type "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" is 
> inefficient for
>      sending large quantities of binary data or text 
> containing non-ASCII


It's not exactly right to talk about a 'content type' when encoding data
in a URI. The awkward name 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded' was made
up for creating a MIME body that is encoded using the URI mechanism,
but for talking about the URI-encoding method, it's just the URI
encoding
method.

>  We expect these limitations to be address in future 
> specifications (@@e.g. XForms?) and deployed in due course.

It's not in the XForms charter to solve this problem, I don't think.
Received on Saturday, 18 May 2002 12:16:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:51 UTC