This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 15202 - The method and formmethod content attributes are enumerated attributes with the following keywords and states: The keyword get, mapping to the state GET, indicating the HTTP GET method. The keyword post, mapping to the state POST, indicating the HTTP POST
Summary: The method and formmethod content attributes are enumerated attributes with t...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-12-15 03:14 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2012-01-28 18:32 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2011-12-15 03:14:49 UTC 
Specification: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#top
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#top

Comment:
The method and formmethod content attributes are enumerated attributes with
the following keywords and states:

The keyword get, mapping to the state GET, indicating the HTTP GET method.
The keyword post, mapping to the state POST, indicating the HTTP POST method.

the form method still supports GET and POST ONLY? I don't think implementing
the PUT and DELETE method of RESTful API with POST hack or GET hack is a good
idea.

Posted from: 106.187.36.190
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/535.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/15.0.874.121 Safari/535.2
Comment 1 Marco Kotrotsos 2011-12-15 07:41:54 UTC 
I actually am in favor adopting the proposal authored by Mike here: http://amundsen.com/examples/put-delete-forms/ to add PUT and DELETE (and maybe even 9.4 HEAD) 

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html
Comment 2 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2012-01-28 18:32:33 UTC 
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: We had this before, but dropped it for a variety of reasons, not least of which was lack of interest from browser vendors. If you can convince them to implement it (which will probably involve convincing them that people would make compelling use of it) then please don't hesitate to reopen the bug demonstrating this. You can also escalate the issue as described in the paragraph above, if you would like the W3C HTML5 spec to say that browsers are required to do this, though bear in mind that if the browsers never do it it'll eventually be removed from the spec anyway.