- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 08:05:32 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
- Cc: sjk@amazon.com, bobwyman@medio.com, dmk@allegra.att.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
According to Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: > > You know, the "HTTP/1.0 is state of the world" idea has some good sides. > Now we can say, with a fair degree of sense, that "HTTP/1.0 says that > GET and HEAD are mostly idempotent", while HTTP/1.1 says that > "GET and HEAD are idempotent, and so can be cached, UNLESS the following > parameters are put on the document by the server...." > > Since 1.0 is descriptive, it has to say that the idempotency of GET > is "by convention", while 1.1 is prescriptive, and can cast the idempotency > into stone (rather soft stone, but stone nonetheless). > What do you propose for the tens of thousands of documents which are static except for containing a counter? I think a lot of maintainers are going to want to cache them, but they aren't idempotent GETs. John Franks
Received on Friday, 25 August 1995 06:11:58 UTC