- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 13:42:07 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
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 >>>occurred, >> >>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 >>hotlist. > > 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 first. > Fote Koen.
Received on Sunday, 6 October 1996 04:50:08 UTC