Henry Story

Having said that, I have been recently arguing for the [GET method on the IETF mailing list](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015AprJun/0262.html).

SEARCH or GET with a query would allow for any type of query language to be used. GET with QUERY body or header would of course be cacheable. Not sure...

@elf-pavlik URI Templates increase the number of Resources, are bad for caches, have no semantics so require a mapping to some semantics, are less flexible, etc... So no. If you...

> I don't know any efficient HTTP cache that considers the request body for cache keying, It's up to us to write them. Because of CORS we have to go...

> > Btw the neat thing about GET+Header or GET+Body is that if the server does not know about it the resource returns the full representation. > > That seems...

> How exactly would SEARCH reduce the number of resources compared to GET? You mean: "how can `SEARCH` reduce the number of resources compared to `GET`+_URL-templates_?" First note that `GET`...

Note also that it currently does the right thing. If the server does not understand the right headers it returns the full content: For `GET` + Query header: ``` $...

> > `SEARCH` or `GET` + _Query header or body_ gives the client more freedom, and is better for caches. > > You haven't convinced me of that. It's simply...

> The same can be achieved with query= like SPARQL does (and if you want to support different languages, just offer different templates, like bla/sparql?query= and bla/other?query=.) Bonus: this way,...

@RubenVerborgh wrote: > And if you say that, thanks to the Location header, we still have addressability, then I'd say you have the same problem all over again, because the...