[mochikit] Re: Shouldn't doXHR default to POST instead of GET to be "proper"?

2008-01-21 Thread troels knak-nielsen
On Jan 21, 2008 9:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suppose you'll say that doXHR is needed when people do NOT want to > pull data from server in JSON format? Yeah, loadJSON is more high-level than doXHR, which again is more high-level, than using getXMLHttpRequest with send

[mochikit] Re: Shouldn't doXHR default to POST instead of GET to be "proper"?

2008-01-21 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Jan 21, 2008 12:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 1:16 am, "troels knak-nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That depends on how you use it. The assumption is, that you are > > pulling data with doXHR. If you want to push data, you should specify > > th

[mochikit] Re: Shouldn't doXHR default to POST instead of GET to be "proper"?

2008-01-21 Thread seber...@spawar.navy.mil
On Jan 21, 1:16 am, "troels knak-nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That depends on how you use it. The assumption is, that you are > pulling data with doXHR. If you want to push data, you should specify > the method. Most other HTTP-agents also default to using GET, and only > use POST, whe

[mochikit] Re: Shouldn't doXHR default to POST instead of GET to be "proper"?

2008-01-21 Thread troels knak-nielsen
On Jan 21, 2008 8:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my limited beginner's understanding of REST interfaces and HTML, > I'm told it is proper to *pull* data from server with HTML GETs > and to *push* data to server with HTML POSTsis that right? That's about right. > I