- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:48:07 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
So, I'm hearing a lot of agreement on adding idempotency to the registry. Anyone object to that as closing this issue? Cheers, On 03/07/2012, at 5:28 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 00:48:34 UTC