Even imagining a QUERY with a large JSON filtering structure, or say an image input as request body, it feels extremely odd to include the request body as part of the cache key. It also implies an unbounded and user-controlled cache key, with the only really meaningful general caching strategy being bitwise compare of the request body (or a hash), which in a hostile scenario implies cache busting would be trivial.

This invokes multiple semantic oddities in one go with obvious difficulties for a very niche use case. If I'm writing a service that needs complex filtering or complex input like an image, any form of caching (e.g. individual data columns of a join, or embeddings keyed by perceptual hashes of a decoded image input) is going to be far away from the HTTP layer and certainly unrelated to the exact bit representation of the request on the wire.

Why even bother trying to capture this in a generic way?

I would be far more inclined to try and capture this caching semantic as a new header for POST. Something like "Vary: request-body" or similar. Perfectly backwards compatible and perfectly ignorable for all but the 0.1% of CDN use cases where the behaviour might turn out useful

    <form action="..." method="query">

Due to the need of bodies in requests, everyone uses POST and streaming results often use the text/event-stream protocol for responses. But this is technically a bad fit because no state is actually changing and because EventSource can only use GET for some obstinate reason. So many APIs reimplement the functionality with their own parser

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10008.txt

I've been sending request body along GET method for years now

I thought it wouldn't be a terrible idea to open up the GET method to contain a body but according to the original spec the GET body is to be ignored completely. There's also caching which would break because the important bit of the request would live in the stripped body.

I think the name is confusing because the term 'query' is already used to refer to http requests in general.

Just the title of the RFC confused me.

I like that we now have a way to not being forced to define Resources when we want to query. It always felt like I was missing something that there could be an infinite, defined-on-the-fly number of Resources for a "part" of a given Resource. Do I really want to define "all cats that sleep more than 20 hours a day and like sunbeams and want to eat breakfast at 3 am" as a Resource? (ok, we all know that is actually the full set of cats). I'm ok that you want to define that as a Resource but in my system, it makes more sense that Cats is the Resource and I just need some accepted way to query.

I like the implementation (again, as just a guy that programs). I don't see how it could have done it better or simpler which probably hides the complexity of getting there.

I also especially appreciate how the spec is written. Opening a spec, I wonder how far I'll get before I don't know what the heck they're talking about (and, again, as just a guy that programs). I don't think it's easy to write a spec that is complete and approachable like this. Really appreciate that.

HTTP is transfer protocol. It should not ever imply anything at the business level.

Yes REST made it's worst mistake out if it by giving a meaning to the verb.

Yes proxies rule how the body is re-interpreted in spite of the will of the sender (wtf).

But the original RFC states clearly that any verb can be used. This is how WebDav normalised its own.

But playing fancy by introducing a change that all HTTP implementation will have to honor is a very bad and irrational choice.

I’ve enjoyed the combination with Range headers for paging, despite this tidbit:

> It is expected that these built-in features will be used instead of HTTP Range Requests

Using the QUERY request as the definition of a set, and Range to retrieve subsets seems very natural.