- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:39:31 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Now <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/388>. Is editorial, since the decision was already made in #238. On 23/10/2012, at 6:12 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > On 23/10/2012, at 6:00 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> the text you complained about back then has been rewritten a few months ago. Please check the WGLC draft. >> >> With respect to tracking: I think this is issue <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/238>, see also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JanMar/0928.html>. > > > Yes. > > I do see, however, that we have this language at the top of <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-21#section-7.4>: > >> If the required action involves a subsequent HTTP request, it MAY be carried >> out by the user agent without interaction with the user if and only >> if the method used in the second request is known to be "safe", as >> defined in Section 5.2.1. > > MAY... if and only if is a badly constructed requirement, and it also goes against the resolution of #238. I'll enter a WGLC issue to correct that. > > Thanks, > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 01:40:01 UTC