- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:55:24 -0500
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "HTML WG List" <public-html@w3.org>
On 11/8/07, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > I appreciate the distinction, sure. Here are the facts we seem to agree on: > > 1) A message can be idempotent or not idempotent independent of how it's > treated by the server. > 2) Whether a message is idempotent is a matter of definition. > > Are we OK on those? Yes, good. Sorry, I think I might have been confusing your position with Ian's. > Given that, the specification that defines ping messages is the specification > under discussion here. And it defines them to not be idempotent. So this is where we disagree. I believe that the meaning of the message is defined by the intent of the user, and that in this case, as the user is clicking a link, that no unsafe/non-idempotent message can result. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 13:55:35 UTC