4 ms·

The other issue with adding a separate supported way to do what people did with GET+body is that we will probably see servers slowly drop support for the GET+bo

by veltas 4mo ago

The other issue with adding a separate supported way to do what people did with GET+body is that we will probably see servers slowly drop support for the GET+body approach when QUERY gets widespread support/usage, and then a ton of other stuff will break. Unless you're really going to improve things or the existing practices are really too painful, standards should follow convention. Even though GET+body is not handled the same everywhere, it's easier to make that the standard than it is to make a new syntax the standard.

flanked-evergl 4mo ago
> Even though GET+body is not handled the same everywhere, it's easier to make that the standard than it is to make a new syntax the standard. Is there some research or study that you base this claim on? What is the reasoning? Can you elaborate?
- veltas 4mo ago
  With standards it helps to reconcile existing behaviour, rather than create new unproven syntax. Likewise creating a new syntax for something that already exists means you are just adding to the heap of stuff that needs support on mainstream servers, and as I already said it will probably create compatibility issues as the old deprecated/illegal syntax is removed. This is unnecessary friction. And really what is the advantage of a new syntax? That needs explaining.
  - flanked-evergl 4mo ago
    But it's not existing behaviour. It does not already exist. Breaking the semantics of something that exists means that things will work inconsistently. Breaking the semantics of get will also create compatibility issues.
    - veltas 4mo ago
      You might want to read the article.
      - flanked-evergl 4mo ago
        Does the article provide supporting evidence for your claim that "Even though GET+body is not handled the same everywhere, it's easier to make that the standard than it is to make a new syntax the standard."? Because if it does I don't see it. To me it just seems like a baseless claim.

by veltas 4mo ago

flanked-evergl 4mo ago

> Even though GET+body is not handled the same everywhere, it's easier to make that the standard than it is to make a new syntax the standard. Is there some research or study that you base this claim on? What is the reasoning? Can you elaborate?

veltas 4mo ago
With standards it helps to reconcile existing behaviour, rather than create new unproven syntax. Likewise creating a new syntax for something that already exists means you are just adding to the heap of stuff that needs support on mainstream servers, and as I already said it will probably create compatibility issues as the old deprecated/illegal syntax is removed. This is unnecessary friction. And really what is the advantage of a new syntax? That needs explaining.
- flanked-evergl 4mo ago
  But it's not existing behaviour. It does not already exist. Breaking the semantics of something that exists means that things will work inconsistently. Breaking the semantics of get will also create compatibility issues.
  - veltas 4mo ago
    You might want to read the article.
    - flanked-evergl 4mo ago
      Does the article provide supporting evidence for your claim that "Even though GET+body is not handled the same everywhere, it's easier to make that the standard than it is to make a new syntax the standard."? Because if it does I don't see it. To me it just seems like a baseless claim.