- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 12:36:31 +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
Marked for incorporation in -20. On 05/07/2012, at 10:48 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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/ > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 02:36:58 UTC