Re: PaceServiceError GET vs. POST (was Re: AtomPubIssuesList)

To: mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: PaceServiceError GET vs. POST (was Re: AtomPubIssuesList)
From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:46:01 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx>, danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx, Atom-Syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jun 22, 2004, at 9:42 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:

There are lots of reasons to use a GET. The main one is that the request to the ErrorURI should be considered safe by the client:

That argument *almost* works, but turn it around. Is there any reason not to use a POST? -Tim

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PaceServiceError GET vs. POST
  - From: Greg Stein
- Re: PaceServiceError GET vs. POST (was Re: AtomPubIssuesList)
  - From: Robert Sayre

References:
- AtomPubIssuesList
  - From: Sam Ruby
- Re: AtomPubIssuesList
  - From: Robert Sayre
- Re: AtomPubIssuesList
  - From: Danny Ayers
- PaceServiceError GET vs. POST (was Re: AtomPubIssuesList)
  - From: Mark Pilgrim
- Re: PaceServiceError GET vs. POST (was Re: AtomPubIssuesList)
  - From: Robert Sayre