- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:32:42 -0500
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 08:55, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 09:43, Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:45, David Orchard wrote: > > > Does this suggest that there should be > > > a general property of operations that specifies safetey, which could then be > > > bound to POST? > > > > Marking HTTP POST operations safe is different from what I had in mind. > > I don't see anything wrong with it, but I don't see very much benefit > > from it either, compared to the benefit of making the results > > of safe operations addressable. > > I am trying to understand what it means to make a POST > operation safe. *mark*, not *make*. i.e. a POST operation might _be_ safe (e.g. markup validator with file upload), but in the current HTTP protocol, the client has no way to know that it's safe. It has to assume that POST operations are unsafe. > Does this mean designing a new method that > carries a message body but is identified as a safe method > (QUERY?) A new QUERY method is analagous to having some way for the server to tell the client that certain POST operations are safe. > or does this mean something different? > > _ Ian > > > -- > > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > > Tel: +1 718 260-9447 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 10:32:46 UTC