- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 13:34:21 -0500 (EST)
- To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> wrote: >I have to admit that at this point I'm confused about how to handle >the redo-safe: proposal. > >What about if you write it up as a separate internet draft? >That would let us process it as an independent item. I don't know if this merits a separate ID. Here's my suggestion. That an optional boolean reply header be added to the protocol: Safe: yes | no which applies only to methods that send content with the request. It's semantics would be "This content as a subordinate to the Request-URI (does not | indeed does) cause side effects for which the UA will be held accountable." The header would be optional and current default assumptions about a method's safety would apply in it's absence. UAs could use this information to regulate their confirmation requests and/or warnings, and their disposition of the content. Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================
Received on Monday, 7 October 1996 10:43:48 UTC