Re: idempotence of POST

> -  GET does not (at least in implementations) support a body
> -  POST requests are assumed to not be 'reload'able safely without
>        asking the user

I've always had a problem with the opposite problem - that GETS can be
assumed to be safely reloadable. That means there's no way to
reference an object that isn't idempotent with a simple link, but I
have to use a form. This is sufficiently painfull that I've generally
ignored the issue, and just built scripts that do non-idempotent GETs
when I needed them (which has always been for intranet or similar
private usage, not for the general browing public).

So...

> c) allow the return value of POST to indicate that the request
>    can be repeated safely.
> Is this worth pursuing?

Yes, especially if the same mechanism is used to allow responses to
GET requests indicate that they are NOT safely reloadable.

Sorry - I don't have an idea to contribute for syntax either.

	<mike