- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 02:34:25 -0400 (EDT)
- To: LMM@acm.org (Larry Masinter)
- Cc: hugo@w3.org (Hugo Haas), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> 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".
Not that clearly, because it certainly seems to fit to me.
RFC 2616, 9.5, also says this;
POST is designed to allow a uniform method to cover the following functions:
- Annotation of existing resources;
- Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list,
or similar group of articles;
- Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a
form, to a data-handling process;
- Extending a database through an append operation.
I've seen HTML forms used for all four.
If your issue with it is about current practice in the large,
I'd suggest that the third item should cover that. It also falls
under the "accept as a new subordinate" semantic as a special
case; the container resource (identified by the POST URL) is
stateless. It immediately discards subordinates after handling
their submission.
MB
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2001 02:34:32 UTC