- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:34:28 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 16/10/2013 11:31 a.m., Philippe Mougin wrote: > Le 15 oct. 2013 à 23:24, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> a écrit : > >> On 15/10/2013, at 1:17 PM, Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: >> >>> Yes. Adding "on the server" and an example would definitely help. >> Seems like a reasonable editorial clarification to me. > It wouldn't work as it would include in its scope methods that actually are not idempotent. Which ones and how? > This is because "the intended effect" of a request may go far beyond "the server". "the server" is the authoritative copy of the resource. Application level choice to use idempotent methods or non-idempotent methods determines the systemic effects and behaviour. Not all application systems are correct. The ones which break due to this have never been correct and are already broken due to their incorrect assumptions about HTTP idempotency. In absence of any evidence to the contrary I also agree with this proposed change. Amos
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 03:34:57 UTC