83 messages in org.w3.www-tagRe: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Meth...
FromSent OnAttachments
Dan ConnollyApr 15, 2002 8:50 am 
Larry MasinterApr 15, 2002 1:44 pm 
David OrchardApr 15, 2002 3:01 pm 
David OrchardApr 15, 2002 3:19 pm 
Mark BakerApr 15, 2002 8:00 pm 
Keith MooreApr 15, 2002 8:37 pm 
Scott CantorApr 15, 2002 9:28 pm 
Edwin KhodabakchianApr 15, 2002 9:34 pm 
David OrchardApr 15, 2002 10:18 pm 
Paul PrescodApr 15, 2002 11:17 pm 
Tim BrayApr 15, 2002 11:32 pm 
Mark NottinghamApr 16, 2002 1:01 am 
Tim BrayApr 16, 2002 1:02 am 
Mark NottinghamApr 16, 2002 1:09 am 
Paul PrescodApr 16, 2002 2:11 am 
Paul PrescodApr 16, 2002 3:02 am 
Mark BakerApr 16, 2002 4:54 am 
Williams, StuartApr 16, 2002 8:22 am 
Keith MooreApr 16, 2002 8:32 am 
jon...@research.att.comApr 16, 2002 8:44 am 
Scott CantorApr 16, 2002 8:55 am 
Paul PrescodApr 16, 2002 9:40 am 
Mark NottinghamApr 16, 2002 9:42 am 
Hutchison, NigelApr 16, 2002 9:43 am 
Henrik Frystyk NielsenApr 16, 2002 10:48 am 
Bullard, Claude L (Len)Apr 16, 2002 1:46 pm 
Larry MasinterApr 16, 2002 6:39 pm 
Roy T. FieldingApr 16, 2002 7:54 pm 
Larry MasinterApr 16, 2002 10:10 pm 
Graham KlyneApr 17, 2002 1:54 am 
Paul PrescodApr 18, 2002 12:33 am 
Graham KlyneApr 18, 2002 9:11 am 
Alex RousskovApr 18, 2002 9:30 am 
Paul PrescodApr 18, 2002 9:45 am 
Graham KlyneApr 18, 2002 11:58 am 
Roy T. FieldingApr 18, 2002 3:11 pm 
Don BoxApr 18, 2002 6:28 pm 
Mark BakerApr 18, 2002 8:50 pm 
Keith MooreApr 18, 2002 8:54 pm 
Paul PrescodApr 18, 2002 10:00 pm 
Graham KlyneApr 19, 2002 12:53 am 
Bill de hÓraApr 19, 2002 4:18 am 
Roy T. FieldingApr 19, 2002 1:20 pm 
Anne Thomas ManesApr 22, 2002 3:23 pm 
Paul PrescodApr 22, 2002 4:01 pm 
Anne Thomas ManesApr 22, 2002 8:17 pm 
Paul PrescodApr 22, 2002 10:21 pm 
Anne Thomas ManesApr 23, 2002 5:36 am 
Paul PrescodApr 23, 2002 12:03 pm 
Paul PrescodApr 23, 2002 2:09 pm 
Roy T. FieldingApr 23, 2002 2:14 pm 
Bullard, Claude L (Len)Apr 23, 2002 2:50 pm 
Joshua AllenApr 23, 2002 2:53 pm 
David OrchardApr 23, 2002 4:14 pm 
Keith MooreApr 23, 2002 5:05 pm 
Roy T. FieldingApr 23, 2002 5:14 pm 
Simon St.LaurentApr 23, 2002 5:18 pm 
Larry MasinterApr 23, 2002 6:31 pm 
Mark BakerApr 23, 2002 6:36 pm 
Paul PrescodApr 23, 2002 8:03 pm 
Tim BrayApr 23, 2002 8:30 pm 
Dan ConnollyApr 23, 2002 9:05 pm 
Joshua AllenApr 23, 2002 9:10 pm 
Anne Thomas ManesApr 23, 2002 9:28 pm 
Mark NottinghamApr 23, 2002 9:42 pm 
Jeff BoneApr 23, 2002 9:42 pm 
Joshua AllenApr 23, 2002 10:02 pm 
Paul PrescodApr 23, 2002 10:05 pm 
Joshua AllenApr 23, 2002 10:27 pm 
Joshua AllenApr 23, 2002 10:38 pm 
Mark NottinghamApr 23, 2002 10:57 pm 
Mark NottinghamApr 23, 2002 11:16 pm 
Joshua AllenApr 23, 2002 11:20 pm 
Dan ConnollyApr 23, 2002 11:23 pm 
Tim BrayApr 23, 2002 11:56 pm 
Bullard, Claude L (Len)Apr 24, 2002 7:23 am 
Larry MasinterApr 24, 2002 8:47 am 
Keith MooreApr 24, 2002 10:46 am 
Bullard, Claude L (Len)Apr 24, 2002 10:56 am 
Aaron SwartzApr 24, 2002 11:27 am 
Mike DierkenApr 24, 2002 12:06 pm 
David OrchardApr 25, 2002 10:54 am 
Roy T. FieldingMay 5, 2002 3:38 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)Actions...
From:Paul Prescod (pa@prescod.net)
Date:Apr 16, 2002 2:11:23 am
List:org.w3.www-tag

Mark Nottingham wrote:

Do most Web developers know the background behind safe/unsafe methods, idempotence, and understand the depths of REST, or do they just use POST when they want to hide the query arguments?

Most web developers know not to use GET for non-idempotent actions because of the meaning of the browser reload button. They also know not to use POST for things that they would like to have long-lived URIs ("bookmarkable"). That's the essense of the difference between the two methods.

... Of course there will be people who misunderstand SOAP, or limit their understanding to a subset of its capability. Why is that "fishy?"

What is fishy is that there is no interoperable core. Some people dislike the RPC part of it (especially section 5 encoding) enough not to implement it. Others implement *only* that and none of the "envelope" and literal features. I'm talking SOAP implementors, not developers using SOAP.

Obviously this is fishy because of the interoperability implications, but it is also fishy from a procedural point of view that a specification designed to be a fish evolved into a mammal during its standardization process. What does that say about the initial requirements gathering? And if it is primarily intended to walk on land now, should the thing still have gills?