- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 17:47:10 EDT
- To: koen@win.tue.nl
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) wrote:
> Dave Kristol:
[...]
> >My only reason for fussing with the definition is to be sure we're talking
> >about the same things and using the same terms to do so. I feared we were
> >using the same words to mean different things.
>
> In a previous message your definition was:
>
> >I think the prevailing definition of an idempotent {method, URI} pair
> >is that you get back exactly the same content each time you make a
> >request with that pair.
>
> I would call that a `static' pair.
>
> Your meaning of idempotent is not the (prevailing?) one used in the draft
> http spec. From draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-02.html:
> [definition from spec. omitted]
> >From this, I read that:
> - GET and HEAD are defined to be the idempotent methods
> - idempotent means `safe'.
Sorry to be a pain, but what do you mean by "safe"? This is the
philosophical vs. operational divide. The definition so far has been
operational: GET and HEAD are idempotent; they have no side-effects.
Okay. But what are we implying when we say that? What is the
philosophical definition, in the context of WWW?
>
> IMO, the spec should be rewritten to avoid the use of the word
> `idempotent' altogether. Failing that, there should be a proper
> definition of it in the terminology section.
[...]
Dave Kristol
Received on Monday, 28 August 1995 15:41:54 UTC