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

Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 19:18:22 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199610031718.TAA09156@wsooti14.win.tue.nl>
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1691
Foteos Macrides:
>	This perhaps still confuses two different things that current
>UAs do not distinguish clearly when handling FORMs, but UAs of the
>future should.
>The first refers to a "cache", in the conventional sense, of
>the *reply* entity (body) from the previous submission, whereas
>the second refers to the set of information needed to repeat
>the submission for a new reply.

I understand the distinction, but this issue is orthogonal to HTTP
protocol extensions as far as I can see, so it should not be discussed
on this list.

>>Thus, introducing a `Redo-Safe: yes' header would make more sense
>>than `Idempotent: yes'.
>	The concept of "safe" is subject to a variety of interpetations,
>in contrast to "idempotent", which can be defined precisely.

The 1.1 spec defines both "safe" and "idempotent" precisely.  With the
1.1 definitions, the header name we want is "Redo-Safe", not

The "idempotent" definition in the 1.1 spec talks about _all_ side
effects, not just unsafe side effects.  This makes "idempotent" a
pretty useless term for discussing real-life http applications.

>				Fote

Received on Thursday, 3 October 1996 10:25:13 UTC

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