W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: HTTP working group status & issues (please reply)

From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:18:09 -0500 (EST)
To: mwm@contessa.phone.net
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <01I9V4QC98BM0078LQ@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1617
mwm@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer) wrote:
>> the header suggestion (e.g. Idempotent: yes | no) has the benefit that
>> CGI scripts can include it as META tag [...] The problem, though, is that it
>> "begs" to be used for GET as well.
>This isn't a problem, this is a feature. I *want* to be able to tag
>the results of a GET as NOT being idempotent. Or can you provide a way
>to create a link (as opposed to a form submit button) that uses POST
>for data?

	That's OK with me, and would be useful for any contemporary
client.  I simply was respecting the concern that was expressed about
it being problematic for some HTTP/1.0 caching servers and old clients
designed to assume GETs always are idempotent, while not wanting to pass
on an Idempotent: yes | no header at least for POST, PUT, DELETE, etc.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 1996 14:24:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:20 UTC