Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #14550

Re: GET vs POST in AJAX

Followups directed to: comp.lang.javascript

Show all headers | View raw

Daniel Pitts wrote:

> On 6/17/12 12:06 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Daniel Pitts wrote:
>>> On 6/16/12 12:58 PM, Stefan Weiss wrote:
>>>> On 2012-06-16 21:22, Daniel Pitts wrote:
>>>>> On 6/16/12 4:13 AM, Stefan Weiss wrote:
>>>>>> As you say, the difference is mostly semantic. In a nutshell,
>>>>>> - GET retrieves information from the server. It should not have any
>>>>>> other side effects changing the state on the server, or at least the
>>>>>> client may assume that the request is "safe".
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I recall reading somewhere that "GET" need only be
>>>>> idempotent. The first call is allowed to change server state, but
>>>>> calling it over and over again will have no further effect.
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard that before. It would be be interesting to know where
>>>> you read that.
>>> I don't remember where I first read that, but here is a top result for
>>> the Google search "get method idempotent"
>>>
>>> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html>
>>
>> This is Usenet.
> I'm aware.

No, you are not.  Usenet is _not_ a part of the Web or the Internet 
(although there are intersections).  However, the resource you are referring 
to, by URL, is.

>> Please do not only post URLs of resources which you *think*
>> support your position
> I've been on here for years in other newsgroups. Each of which has their
> own guides for such matters.

I am rather certain that this guideline applies to all *Usenet* newsgroups.

> Thanks for informing me. I only wish the voice was as kind as the act.

You do not know me and should be rather slow second-guessing my intentions.

>> (for the dedicated reader to switch medium to find out
>> whether it really does), but *make an argument* using the resource as
>> reference (best by citing it *and* quoting the relevant parts).   Refer
>> to Stefan's posting for a good example how that can be done.
> 
> I was not and am not making an argument.

And that is the problem.  This is a discussion.  If you want to make a point 
here, you are *required* to formulate a convincing argument.  There is 
enough unfounded babbling already.

> My original post was "I recall reading x," Stefan's reply was "It would be
> be interesting to know where you read that," and my final response was, in
> fact, a URL where one could read that.

Do you not see that this is insufficient because you may be wrong?

> Also, I'd rather not worry about copyright infringement

*Proper* quotation from *published* sources is *never* infringement of 
copyright.  (IANAL)  Science could hardly work without quotation now and 
then; neither could a newsgroup (which is why the default in NetNews clients 
is to quote the precursor; users are expected to trim it to the parts they 
are referring to in their followup).

In any case, with regard to violations of rights, you should be more 
concerned about not violating the rules of conduct set forth by your service 
provider, which you might be doing by forging message headers.  It would be 
impolite at least.

> just so a less "dedicated" reader would be able to see my references. 

Science teaches us that references without argument are worthless, as are 
arguments without references to support them.

> This isn't the 90's any more.

True.

> It isn't even the 00's anymore. 

Also true.  (However, "00's" is a bit awkward a term.  I think you were 
looking for "'90s" and "2000s" instead.)

> Switching mediums should be easy,

That is an obvious fallacy.

> and provide more utility, than simply reading a "copy and
> pasted" potentially copyright material. As well as leaving it open to
> the possibility that I'm intentionally misquoting or eliding contrary
> information.

You are missing the point, and your logic is flawed.  *Omitting* the context 
in which you think the reference applies was/is the mistake; not to provide 
it.


HTH

PointedEars
-- 
> If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices"
> in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right...
Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field.
  -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

GET vs POST in AJAX CODEY <ed.pataky@gmail.com> - 2012-06-15 18:16 -0700
  Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-16 13:31 +1000
    Re: GET vs POST in AJAX CODEY <ed.pataky@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 15:43 -0700
  Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Jason C <jwcarlton@gmail.com> - 2012-06-15 21:14 -0700
  Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-06-16 13:13 +0200
    Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-06-16 12:22 -0700
      Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-06-16 21:58 +0200
        Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-06-16 13:26 -0700
          Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-06-17 09:06 +0200
            Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-06-17 20:57 -0700
              Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 15:23 +0200
                Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-06-18 20:17 +0200
                Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 03:41 +0200
                Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:25 +1000
                Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-06-19 19:19 +0200
                Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Dr J R Stockton <reply1225@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-06-19 20:44 +0100
              Re: GET vs POST in AJAX Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-06-18 20:14 +0200

csiph-web