> "There are two noncontroversial uses for overloaded POST. The first is to *simulate* HTTP's uniform interface for clients like web browsers that don't support PUT or DELETE"
>
> — [RESTful Web Services](1), Leonard Richardson & Sam Ruby.
## Overloading the HTTP method
## Browser based PUT, DELETE, etc...
**TODO: Preamble.** Note that this is the same strategy as is used in [Ruby on Rails](2).
...
...
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ For example, given the following form:
`request.method` would return `"DELETE"`.
## Overloading the HTTP content type
## Browser based submission of non-form content
Browser-based submission of content types other than form are supported by using form fields named `_content` and `_content_type`:
...
...
@@ -29,13 +29,13 @@ For example, given the following form:
`request.content_type` would return `"application/json"`, and `request.content` would return `"{'count': 1}"`
## Why not just use Javascript?
## URL based accept headers
**[TODO]**
## URL based format suffixes
## Doesn't HTML5 support PUT and DELETE forms?
Nope. It was at one point intended to support `PUT` and `DELETE` forms, but was later [dropped from the spec](3). There remains [ongoing discussion](4) about adding support for `PUT` and `DELETE`, as well as how to support content-types other than form-encoded data.
Nope. It was at one point intended to support `PUT` and `DELETE` forms, but was later [dropped from the spec](3). There remains [ongoing discussion](4) about adding support for `PUT` and `DELETE`, as well as how to support contenttypes other than form-encoded data.