Timeline for Why are there no PUT and DELETE methods on HTML forms?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18, 2023 at 12:54 | comment | added | bdsl | @Tara for DELETE, presumably you'd be deleting the resource at the URL that you send the request to. It's for deleting one thing that has its own URL, not for deleting a list of records. | |
| S Jul 31, 2021 at 18:14 | history | suggested | hakre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
add some more links (anchors) to referring comments quoted from.
|
| Jul 30, 2021 at 23:46 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 31, 2021 at 18:14 | |||||
| Mar 14, 2021 at 4:54 | comment | added | c.. | Here I am spending hours and hours trying to write the most semantically-perfect application and they haven't even bothered to implement the words "PUT" and "DELETE" into literally one of the oldest components on the internet. | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 9:22 | comment | added | Polygnome |
"PUT as a form method makes no sense, you wouldn't want to PUT a form payload". For editing a resource that is exactly what you'd want to do... for DELETE i might see the point, but for PUT? Not so much.
|
|
| May 29, 2020 at 19:01 | comment | added | Ricardo Pedroni | I can agree with DELETE not having a data-related payload, but that doesn't make sense to me with PUT (specially given that the formal definition of PUT is a complete payload, contrary to PATCH) | |
| Jan 18, 2020 at 11:10 | comment | added | That Realtor Programmer Guy | I must say this is disappointing. Especially with the file form control, more than any other, put and delete are immediately useful. PUT sending one or more file contents, and delete sending a URI | |
| Nov 15, 2019 at 22:11 | comment | added | Tara | I agree with @MohammedShareefC there is most definitely a payload with put and delete. With put, which records are you changing, and what information within those records are changing, and what are you changing it to? That would all be communicated via a payload. For delete, unless you're deleteing all records, which records are you deleting? | |
| Dec 1, 2018 at 7:20 | comment | added | Mohammed Shareef C |
I don't agree with DELETE only makes sense if there is no payload. People don't make delete forms with GET method. But use POST to include CSRF verification. So, there is payload.
|
|
| May 3, 2018 at 23:55 | comment | added | LCB | Why wouldn't I want to PUT a form payload? I cannot understand. | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 0:38 | comment | added | Jonah |
why couldn’t x-www-form-encoded be a representation of a resource to PUT?
|
|
| Nov 28, 2016 at 17:05 | comment | added | jncraton | There's an issue open to have this implemented in the issue trackers of the major browsers, so a good place to start would be to vote up those issues and explain the importance of this feature. Here's a post listing the issues for major browsers: lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2015May/0055.html | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 17:07 | comment | added | jonnybot | So, it looks like discussion on the mailing list died off around February of last year, with no vendors chiming in. Obviously, Firefox has shown willingness to implement something like this in the past. The draft isn't being maintained. Maybe there needs to be some community rallying around this to breath some life into it? | |
| S Jul 26, 2016 at 12:56 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Re-wrapped "cachable" with its corresponding link. !!! noticed links (6) and (7) are missing from the post
|
| Jul 26, 2016 at 11:09 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 26, 2016 at 12:56 | |||||
| Apr 23, 2016 at 4:11 | comment | added | Jeff Puckett | is this still valid? w3.org/TR/form-http-extensions/#http-delete-form | |
| Feb 6, 2015 at 19:50 | comment | added | Mark E. Haase | @Ajedi32 Nominally it is a request for vendors to express their interest level, but anybody interested in the standard should voice their support. The more community support, the more likely vendors are to take notice. | |
| Feb 6, 2015 at 15:27 | comment | added | Ajedi32 | @mehaase That particular post seems to be asking for feedback from browser vendors, not web devs. Do you still think I (and other interested developers) should chime in there? | |
| Feb 6, 2015 at 14:11 | comment | added | Mark E. Haase | @Ajedi32 here's the post: lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2015Feb/0000.html I encourage everybody who's interested to reply to this post on the public-html mailing list. | |
| Feb 4, 2015 at 23:16 | comment | added | Mark E. Haase | It's the same thing you already linked to. I think Cameron is going to send out an e-mail asking for vendor interest and community interest. When that happens, he would appreciate if those of us who care would chime in. | |
| Feb 4, 2015 at 21:53 | comment | added | Ajedi32 | @mehaase Also, maybe it's just me, but I think mailing lists are a much better place for discussion than for expressing general support of a proposal. I'm not inclined to start a new thread on the public-html-comments mailing list just so I can say "I like this proposal; forms should be able to use other HTTP methods". As someone who grew up on the modern web, what I want to know is: "where's the upvote button?" ;-) | |
| Feb 4, 2015 at 21:46 | comment | added | Ajedi32 | @mehaase Awesome! Do you have a link to the Working Draft? Or is that the same as the "editor's draft" I linked (which seems to be hosted on Cameron's personal GitHub account)? | |
| Feb 4, 2015 at 17:43 | comment | added | Mark E. Haase | @Ajedi32 I e-mailed Cameron Jones (the editor of the current draft) and asked him about the status. He wrote, "the spec is still alive and progressing through the W3C process - it's currently in working draft and the next stage is to hopefully move it into Candidate Recommendation (CR)." He also wrote, "The main factor in this is community interest… If you and others have interest in seeing this implemented i would definitely recommend advocating for such through public-html-comments, the whatwg or the vendors own mailing lists." | |
| Jan 23, 2015 at 19:39 | comment | added | Ajedi32 | So it seems the bug is closed now, with the following rationale: lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Feb/0227.html The editor's draft is here: cameronjones.github.io/form-http-extensions/index.html That seems to be the end of the trail though. Can someone else find a place we can look to monitor this specification's track to becoming a standard? | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 10:30 | comment | added | Jonathan. | Surely you have to include a payload for PUT and for DELETE it is possible? Also if "doesn't make much sense with forms" then why are people asking for it and why does a lot if software he workarounds built in. Odd how one person can just decide what the rest of world needs or wants... | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 17:21 | comment | added | Mark E. Haase | @shivakumar I think what you're really asking is why bother with HTML when JavaScript can already do the job? That's a fair question. I guess the OP's question comes more from a place of curiosity than of practicality. HTML and HTTP are two standards made for each other, and yet HTML seems to be unaware of some of HTTPs most basic properties. "Why?" is a natural question to ask. | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 7:13 | comment | added | shivakumar | @mehaase, How it is different than making ajax put/delete request? | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 9:56 | vote | accept | FilipK | ||
| Sep 17, 2013 at 19:53 | comment | added | user53019 | +1 for putting the research effort in place and digging up a number of external references to properly answer the question. | |
| Sep 17, 2013 at 19:39 | history | answered | Mark E. Haase | CC BY-SA 3.0 |