On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Gary Martin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 12/12/13 15:25, Olemis Lang wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Gary Martin <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> [...] >> >> While we could resort to POSTing instead, I can see the reasoning behind >>> not doing that. Pragmatism would probably trump such reasoning though. I >>> think other solutions would either limit the field sizes or warn of >>> possible loss of data over some limit. Perhaps I have missed something >>> though. >>> >>> >>> >> IMO let's use POST >> >> > I think that is probably the correct answer too but I am tempted to commit > the patch as is and let Antony continue with enhancements if he wishes. I > am unaware of any regressions from his current approach so I think this is > already much better behaviour. > > Yes , my intention was not to suggest that current solution should not be committed . However at least in theory there are two aspects missing IMO 1. use POST 2. testing * though this one might be impossible *now* since js code is involved -- Regards, Olemis - @olemislc
