RE: whenToUseGet-7: How to use GET

Hello Mark,

Firstly, I'd answer the question you posed yes to both 1) and 2), caveat
Dan's except which he elaborated previously [1].  But I wouldn't ask the
question the way to asked it... :-)

In framing the question you are asking folks to accept a tunneling
distinction that you are making. We don't have to agree about that
distinction to agree that (caveat Dan's except) SAFE Web Service operations
when bound to HTTP should be bound to HTTP GET.

Regards

Stuart
--
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0047.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
> Sent: 17 September 2003 16:46
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: whenToUseGet-7: How to use GET
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 06:49:13PM -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> >           TBray: [...]
> >           (2) encouraging, in specs, that developers 
> implementing safe
> >           operations implement them with GET.
> [snip]
> >           DC: [...]
> >           Our position is pretty clear
> >           on this, it is "For safe operations, use 
> GET.....except...."
> 
> Those two statements appear to be saying the same thing, 
> which is good.  But I can extract two possible 
> interpretations from them;
> 
> 1) if the operation that a Web services client is trying to 
> invoke is safe, then this operation should be tunneled 
> through HTTP GET
> 
> or
> 
> 2) if the operation that a Web services client is trying to 
> invoke is safe, then the operation should in fact be GET 
> *instead* of that other operation
> 
> Which was intended?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> (*) I'm ignoring the possibility of GET extension, since HTTP 
> doesn't support mandatory extensions
> 
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 12:17:05 UTC