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

Re: #364 Capturing more information in the method registry

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:48:07 +1000
Cc: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <B073DC3E-3DD8-421B-926C-B870B0CE5532@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
So, I'm hearing a lot of agreement on adding idempotency to the registry.

Anyone object to that as closing this issue?

Cheers,


On 03/07/2012, at 5:28 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-07-03 04:24, mike amundsen wrote:
>> +1 on listing idempotent. this is _critical_ in assessing the use/impact
>> of a method. I'm not clear why it's left off the listing.
>> ...
> 
> Anything in the registry beyond the pointer to the defining specification is just a shortcut; just because it's not in the registry doesn't mean it's not there.
> 
> Adding new fields is possible, but we need find a balance; also, it requires deciding on the value for all methods in the list, which also doesn't come at zero cost :-)
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 00:48:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 July 2012 00:48:39 GMT