"David Orchard" <dorc...@bea.com> wrote:

W3C QA working group is developing a collection of "Quality tips for Webmasters". One of the tips on the to-do list is "GET versus POST": http://www.w3.org/2001/06tips/Overview.html

There is a related posting on W3C QA working group that will definitely not help to resolve the conflicts, but it at least points out the same HTTP terminology bugs that have now migrated to TAG's "DRAFT Findings on Safe Methods":

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Apr/0014.html

The conclusion of that rather long posting is quoted below:

In general, I find that the desire to make Web safe and predictable for the user somehow resulted in rigid requirements on HTTP methods and their interaction with HTML. The goal (safe and predictable Web) can be achieved in many ways. IMO, trying to severely restrict HTTP and HTML use is a waste of effort because it handicaps Web site authors and they would simply ignore these kinds of tips. The Web sites I visit seem to support this theory (well, at least they do not contradict it).

It is the _design_ of the Web site that should make that site safe and predictable, and not whether the author uses GET or POST!

Many attribute success of the Internet to the original intention to provide general communication mechanisms without really knowing (or restricting) how those mechanisms would be used. This is related to the famous end-to-end argument. It seems to me that the tips like the above are moving us in the opposite direction: restricting protocol use in hope that applications become better.

$0.02,

Alex.