- From: Paul Prescod <paulp@ActiveState.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:52:54 -0700
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
"Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> wrote: > 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]. The references you cite seem all to focus on the issue of how to extend HTTP. The issue at hand, however, is about using POST to emulate an *existing* HTTP method: Hugo Haas (hugo@w3.org) wrote: > SOAP messages carried in an HTTP POST request may have the semantics > of an HTTP GET request for example, and using HTTP POST in that way > can be inappropriate. I see this as a very different issue. One discussion about adding functionality that is missing in the Web and another is about whether to reuse the functionality available on the Web or ignore it and rebuild it. When you use POST to mean "MYFOOMETHOD" you sacrifice specificity to get reuse of infrastructure. When you use POST to mean GET you undermine existing infrastructure. And in my mind, caching is the least interesting thing you lose. Hyperlinking and URI-based addressing is way more important.... -- Take a recipe. Leave a recipe. Python Cookbook! http://www.ActiveState.com/pythoncookbook
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2001 02:53:28 UTC