- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:28:38 +0200
- To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-07-03 04:24, mike amundsen wrote: > +1 on listing idempotent. this is _critical_ in assessing the use/impact > of a method. I'm not clear why it's left off the listing. > ... Anything in the registry beyond the pointer to the defining specification is just a shortcut; just because it's not in the registry doesn't mean it's not there. Adding new fields is possible, but we need find a balance; also, it requires deciding on the value for all methods in the list, which also doesn't come at zero cost :-) Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 07:29:15 UTC