Re: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry

Julian:

Thanks for the clarification.

I submit that the following be identified as "MUST appear" in the
method registry
- Method Name
- Safe (yes/no)
- Idempotent (yes/no)
- Link to documentation

All the above items are all "binary" and require no elaboration.

Body details and cache-ability should be identified as MUST items in
the documentation that defines the method, and need not be included in
the registry.

In the "Initial...." RFC, the Idempotent column MAY appear
blank/Uknown if it is decided determining this value for the items in
the list is too time consuming or will hold up timely completion of
the document. We can amend later, if desired.

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me



On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-07-03 22:23, mike amundsen wrote:
>>>
>>> For example, it would be at best inefficient to try to reflect the
>>> semantics of the body in the registry.
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> What I am asking here is on two fronts:
>> 1 - does the _table_ in the proposed RFC ("Initial ... Method
>> Registrations") reflect the proposed _registry_ template?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> 2 - are any of the items mentioned in 2.2.1 (besides Safety) expected
>> to appear in the registry template?
>
>
>
> So far, no. That's why we are having this discussion now.
>
>
>> I want to make sure I am not conflating things (RFC & upcoming
>> registry). Unless, of course, the point of both the RFC and the bis is
>> to do just that; establish a symmetry between the registry and the
>> RFC/bis.
>
>
> The point of the registrations draft is to fill the template for those
> methods not defined by HTTPbis.
>
> Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 21:01:43 UTC