- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:55:02 +0100
- To: <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
At 10:10 PM 4/16/02 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: >No, it isn't 'utterly pointless'. One of the primary use cases for >knowing about whether a method was 'safe' was to decide whether it >was OK to re-do the method without warning the user, as is now done >with POST. A Safe POST could be redone (click Reload) without prompting, >and knowing after the fact was as useful as knowing before. This suggests two possible ideas of "safe": - an operation that has no (externally visible) side effects - an operation that is idempotent: has no further side effects if repeated after it has been performed once In the context of GET, I think the first is desired/needed. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 04:55:33 UTC