- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:12:07 +0100
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
At 12:34 AM 4/18/02 -0700, Paul Prescod wrote: > > - an operation that is idempotent: has no further side effects if repeated > > after it has been performed once > >The HTTP specification uses the term idempotent to mean idempotent. > >http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.1.2 > >PUT is safe but not idempotent. Yup, what it says there is exactly what I meant. And according to that reference, PUT is idempotent. And I really don't see how PUT can be regarded as safe. Unfortunately, the definition of safe in terms of accountability is, to me, rather vague. I can't see how to test it. The section immediately preceding the one you cite mentions "actions they might take which may have an unexpected significance to themselves or others" -- in a web context, it seems to me that any action which changes what is visible on the web is potentially significant, hence my attempt to characterize it in terms of visible side effects. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 12:40:27 UTC