, Mar 21, 2008

Bill de hÓra:

The enormity of the consequences of HTML only allowing GET and POST cannot be overstated IMO.  It's maybe the most damaging technical decision in the web standards space - ever.  I see HTML forms as a root cause for the WS-* "everything goes over POST" debacle, a billion dollar industry mistake, at best.

I've always wondered what's the history behing the GET/POST only restriction in HTML. Was there a good reason (or did something appear to be good reason) for doing so? I can't think of one.

On March 21, 2008 4:52 PM, Matt Brubeck said:

HTTP 1.0 defined only GET, POST, and HEAD. By the time HTTP 1.1 standardized other methods, HTML was probably too bogged down in the browser wars to adapt.

On March 22, 2008 5:45 PM, Marcus said:

O how enjoyably retarded.

How about using a RESTful explanation for things to explain why. Or maybe another useful buzzword, “YAGNI”, I dunno, doesn’t matter, cuz, gee wow, looks like whoever whenever made the right choices for the web to be the screaming success that it is.

Seriously, what you’re doing here is postmortem on the web. The web, people. The web. You’re saying something was wrong when the web was implemented in browses, and now all we’ve got to show for it is….the web.


On March 22, 2008 8:00 PM, Stefan Tilkov Author Profile Page said:

Not entirely sure what you intend to say (except for insulting me on my own blog). I didn’t even say something was wrong, I just wondered why the HTTP and HTML standards don’t match.

Luckily, Matt’s comment provides an answer.

On March 23, 2008 12:00 AM, jean-jacques dubray said:

for me it looks pretty obvious. Could you imagine the mess it would be if people could mess with PUT and DELETE at will?


On March 23, 2008 10:26 AM, Stefan Tilkov Author Profile Page said:

@JJ: Why would the mess be any worse than when using POST?