- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:38:15 -0400
- To: Philippe Mougin <pmougin@acm.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 15/10/2013 6:31 PM, 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. This is because "the intended effect" of a request may go far beyond "the server". A method might be idempotent regarding the state of the server but not idempotent regarding other parts of the real world.
>
> BTW the definition of "Safe methods" in the current draft is faulty for a similar reason.
>
> Best,
>
> Philippe Mougin
Hi Philippe,
I don't understand what you mean. Care to elaborate?
Gili
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 21:38:45 UTC