2 ms·
> 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 re
by 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 agoWith 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 agoBut 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 agoYou might want to read the article.
- flanked-evergl 4mo agoDoes 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.