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

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

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 13:42:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199610061142.NAA06002@wsooti04.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/1704
Foteos Macrides:
>koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) wrote:
>>Foteos Macrides:
>>>  I'm still groping for some name for the
>>>header which implies a status report on whether such a side effect has
>>Why would you want such a status report in a header?  If you know that
>>a redo is safe, you can also store the form you just submitted in a
>        I'm not sure what you mean by "store the form".

I mean storing data about the form in the hotlist database so that you
can redo the same POST request at a later time.

>I'd personally feel more comfortable about something
>like  Accountable: yes : no  with default "yes" for POST.

So you want the implied semantics of `safe: yes' rather than
`redo-safe:  yes'?  I could live with that.

>        I can image CGI author's putting a line for sending a
>Redo-Safe: yes  header without code to check for whether the COD
>hardcopy request has been checked, than an  Accountable: no  header.

I don't know if I agree; predicting the mistakes of CGI authors is a
tricky business.  Anyway, I'd like to delay the discussion about the
best name for the response header until the `link rel=source'
vs. `redo-safe' issue is resolved.  We need to agree on semantics

>                                Fote

Received on Sunday, 6 October 1996 04:50:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:00 UTC