Re: WebDav methods and idempotency

On Feb 25, 2005, at 12:34 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> You are right, MKCOL isn't idempotent, nor is MOVE. I'll raise issues 
> against RFC2518bis, RFC3253bis, RFC3648bis and RFC3744bis so this 
> get's fixed in future revisions.

Do you mean that MKCOL *is* idempotent, and MOVE isn't?


Mark Nottingham

Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 22:46:43 UTC