Don't Go Postal - An argument against improperly overloading the HTTP POST Method
draft-cohen-http-ext-postal-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Josh Cohen | ||
| Last updated | 1998-02-16 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
As time goes on, more and more groups are extending HTTP's functionality. In using HTTP, a decision is made to either use a new method name for new functionality or to overload an existing one such as POST. Our belief is that in most cases, overloading existing method names, with POST as a particularly troublesome example, is a bad idea. We, as a group of individuals, suggest that the default requirement for new HTTP functionality must be to create a new method name.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)