- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:09:32 -0700
- To: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > Ian B. Jacobs > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:34 AM > To: David Orchard > Cc: 'Dan Connolly'; www-tag@w3.org > Subject: RE: WhenToUseGet-7 comments > > > > On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 11:22, David Orchard wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > Yup. Unless there's a marker of some kind. > > How would that be done in the current protocol? > [That was my original question.] > I don't think it can. Hence why at least a WSDL (metadata) marker would tell a client that had the wsdl that it was safe. I guess there could be some new http header for POST that said "safe". Most of the rationale that I hear for wanting a marker is for tooling usage, and wsdl entirely meets that need. Cheers, Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 12:12:56 UTC