- From: Philippe Mougin <pmougin@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 00:31:00 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Le 15 oct. 2013 à 23:24, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> a écrit : > > On 15/10/2013, at 1:17 PM, Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: > >> Yes. Adding "on the server" and an example would definitely help. > > Seems like a reasonable editorial clarification to me. It wouldn't work as it would include in its scope methods that actually are not idempotent. This is because "the intended effect" of a request may go far beyond "the server". A method might be idempotent regarding the state of the server but not idempotent regarding other parts of the real world. BTW the definition of "Safe methods" in the current draft is faulty for a similar reason. Best, Philippe Mougin
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 22:31:25 UTC