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

Re: draft-holtman-http-safe-00.txt

From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 09:44:35 -0500 (EST)
To: gtn@ebt.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1761
gtn@ebt.com (Gavin Nicol) wrote:
>>The hard part is deciding on a name.  My vote is for QUERY, but someone
>>else gets to write the ID.
>I favour PGET (Parameterised GET).

	That seems general enough, with the right and full semantic

	In addition to the requirements that it result only in
retrieval and be safe, what about idempotence (as actually defined
in Section 9.1.2 :)?

	That appears to pertain to automatic retries on interrupted
or segmental transmissions between HTTP/1.1 UAs and servers.  How
would the PGET body affect those considerations?


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
Received on Friday, 11 October 1996 06:58:42 UTC

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