POST instead of GET for associate mode?

[Nathan D. Bowen]

Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:

>Everybody has their own way and
>we're not going to push some weird non-standard just to make some people's
>lives marginally easier.
>
Right, I didn't mean to suggest that I would consider that to be a good 
trade-off, but I missed the fact that there even was a trade-off. I no 
longer think of it as that "weird non-standard", but rather as "that 
format we've all already implemented for very similar data in the same 
exchange".

What I forgot was that it's only servers that already *produce* the 
weird format; consumers only have to implement parsing. For me, it's a 
horse apiece, and I liked the symmetry, but I see that it would be a 
burden on consumer-only implementations, especially compared to 
x-www-form-urlencoded.