- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:27:14 -0400
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 13:28:08 UTC
Works for me. thanks thanks -Doug ______________________________________________________ STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> 09/02/2009 09:19 AM To Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS cc public-ws-resource-access@w3.org Subject Re: safeness text On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Doug Davis wrote: > Yves, > For the one operation in each spec that has been deemed 'safe', I was > thinking of just adding this text after the definition of the operation: > > This operation will not result in any side effect imputable to the > requester. This means that in case of an underlying protocol error that > might get unnoticed, resending the same request can be done automatically. > > Does this work for you? Yes, with a minor modification, can we say "This operation is safe; It will not result in..." ? (ie: I'd like to keep the 'safe' in the text somewhere) -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 13:28:08 UTC