   From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu> Date: Thu, 10
Oct 1996 13:06:57 -0500 (EST) To: dan@spyglass.com Cc: http-
wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com Daniel DuBois
<dan@spyglass.com> wrote: >At 05:09 PM 10/10/96 +0200, Koen
Holtman wrote: >>some HTML form hacks would be needed to provide
the same level of downwards >>compatibility with existing
browsers that Safe can provide, for example >>  <form
action="..." method=post preferred_method=get-with-body> >>
.... >>  </form>. >>So it boils down to cruft in HTTP vs. cruft
in HTML. >Aren't proxies disallowed from forwarding methods they
don't understand? >Wouldn't GETWITHBODY require a HTTP/1.2 (or
rather, a 1.3, since servers >would be forced to accept it in
1.2, but clients would need to not send it >until 1.3, ala
FullURL)?  Safe: yes could be sent today.          What the
GETwithBody would be replacing in this discussion is not just
any GET, but ones which would otherwise have a ?searchpart.
The HTTP/1.1 draft states that Cache-Control and Expires head