Ernest E Vogelsinger wrote:
At 07:54 12.11.2002, Chris Shiflett said:You should probably read the original discussion. The thread was regarding naming conventions used to refer to variable types, and the reference to historical information was regarding Rasmus's choice of get/post for PHP as well as his reasoning.
Anyway, thanks for your insight. Some of these slightly off-topic issues are more interesting than the on-topic ones. :-) Maybe our community needs a historian to collect some of this information for those of us who are interested (or am I the only one?).--------------------[snip]--------------------
It's slightly more than historical - in fact the behavior of GET and POST
is quite clearly laid out in RFC2616
(http://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2616.txt) which represents the
"proposed standard" for HTTP/1.1.
Also, it should be noted that the HTTP/1.1 specification is a draft standard, not a proposed standard. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html for the latest status of standards like that.
Not exactly. This is like saying the path in a URL should be called abs_path, since that's what the specification uses. Most everyone uses the term query string to refer to the section of a URL between the ? and the # (if any). You're the first person I've seen to call it query. :-)To start with, data passed within the URI is called "query"
In plain english, developers SHOULD use $_GET variables only to _compose_ information, not to take some action to _create_ information. We should always be aware that an URI can always be saved in a link collection ("Favirites"), or used as a link target, as opposed to POSTed data.
I spoke about the functional differences between GET and POST in a previous email. You might find it helpful:Personally I try to use GET (with or without a session identifier) only in application environments that are not security related.
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php