- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:37:30 -0700
- To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
# The gist of the problem is that the current HTTP binding uses # HTTP POST requests. The appropriateness of using POST for arbitrary activities is a debate that has happened at great length in a number of other fora: the WebDAV group debated this at length before settling on alternative methods for WebDAV actions [RFC 2518], while the IPP group debated it at length before settling on using POST for the Internet Print Protocol [RFC 2910]. Most of the arguments are on archived mailing lists... just a little searching will turn them up, e.g.: http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/draft-cohen-http-ext-postal-00.txt http://www.globecom.net/ietf/draft/draft-debry-http-usepost-00.html http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/paloalto/minutes.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/feb98/0238.html http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ipp/0092.html and, for that matter, RFC 2324 section 2.1.1. You can save time by referencing the old arguments rather than reinventing them. I don't think that the text you quoted in RFC 2616 is normative, and you quoted it out of context. And besides, the use of POST for form submission (a common usage of POST) is clearly outside the scope of "accept the entity as a new subordinate". Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2001 01:39:16 UTC