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 12:36:31 +1000
Cc: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <FFA15E0B-02CB-4172-97BB-B44605E31BAB@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Marked for incorporation in -20.


On 05/07/2012, at 10:48 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 02:36:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 July 2012 02:37:04 GMT