RE: safeness text

Fine with me. I suggest making this amendment to the previous resolution during the next WG call so it is officially recorded. Thanks.

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 6:27 AM
To: Yves Lafon
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: safeness text


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