- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 05:37:37 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
My .02 - I think we should list safety and idempotency, at the most. Including other information is too simplistic; e.g., cacheability depends on a LOT more than the method, capturing how the method affects cacheability in a table is problematic (see: POST). I'd also be OK with removing all such information, because people really need to read the WHOLE method definition. Cheers, On 03/07/2012, at 4:50 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > FYI, new issue as per recent discussion. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> Resent-From: trac+httpbis@trac.tools.ietf.org >> From: "httpbis" <trac+httpbis@trac.tools.ietf.org> >> Subject: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry >> Date: 3 July 2012 4:48:23 PM AEST >> To: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@tools.ietf.org, mnot@pobox.com >> Reply-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org >> >> #364: Capturing more information in the method registry >> --------------------------+----------------------------------------------- >> Reporter: mnot@… | Owner: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@… >> Type: design | Status: new >> Priority: normal | Milestone: unassigned >> Component: p2-semantics | Severity: Active WG Document >> Keywords: | Origin: >> --------------------------+----------------------------------------------- >> We established the method registry in #72, and considered recording >> idempotency there. However, we closed that issue without a definitive >> answer, because we were still discussing the definition of idempotency. >> >> Should we add idempotency to the method registry? Anything else? >> >> -- >> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/364> >> httpbis <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:38:03 UTC