[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Francis Norton wrote:
> I'm not saying that the model is dead, just that the assumption that
> there is no serious requirement for query parameters that are too
> complex to be URL-encoded as a list of name-value pairs is no longer
> valid.
Agreed.
> I think I can see the advantages of having these queries
> represented in a document-embeddable, idempotency-assumable form, but
> unless someone provides a solution which provides these characteristics
> for complex queries, then people will just use POST instead. Time will
> tell, but at this point I'd be willing to bet a nice bottle of wine on
> this outcome being apparent within the next six month
Interesting bet; I'll take it. All we need is a document-embeddable,
idempotency-assumable form blessed officially and we're off to the
races.
> But I'm interested in passing schema-valid XML blocks as query
> parameters, or representations thereof. Your proposal doesn't help much
> there.
Agreed. I'm after the low-hanging fruit. If the GET mapping turns
out to be popular, maybe somebody real smart will figure out a good
way to to encode your blocks in a URL.
> Are you really comfortable asserting that there is and will be no
> substantial requirement for safe/idempotent operations which have
> parameters of context-sensitive complexity rather than of FSM
> complexity, which I think is what it boils down to?
I'm not asserting that at all. Tons of safe/idempotent operations
right now are submitted by POST out of HTML forms, I've done it
myself, it's a fact of life. All I'm saying is that if it's safe
and idempotent and simple enough to be able to represent as a URI
and make it part of the Web, and there's an easy way to do that,
why not do it?> If not, why don't we try to come up with a solution which meets your
> requirements?
I've done that, I think. -Tim
|
