W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 05:58:21 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <701EDD8E-9B75-474B-95BB-BECF1D180C28@mnot.net>
To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>

On 04/07/2012, at 5:54 AM, mike amundsen wrote:

> Yes, I think safety and idempotence are most needed in this table of previously registered methods.
> 
> Per Julian's comment: if one of the reasons to leave idempotence off the list is that we don't know whether some of these methods are idempotent or not, then I'd opt for saying that in this table ("UNK", etc.) rather than leaving that property out of the table completely.
> 
> On a related note, I wasn't able to find any details on the method registry. Anyone able to give me some pointers?

It's set up here:
  https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#method.registry

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:58:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:58:58 GMT