Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Sun, 6 Oct 1996 13:42:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Foteos Macrides:
>koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) wrote:
>>Foteos Macrides:
>>> I'm still groping for some name for the
>>>header which implies a status report on whether such a side effect has
>>>occurred,
>>
>>Why would you want such a status report in a header? If you know that
>>a redo is safe, you can also store the form you just submitted in a
>>hotlist.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "store the form".
I mean storing data about the form in the hotlist database so that you
can redo the same POST request at a later time.
[...]
>I'd personally feel more comfortable about something
>like Accountable: yes : no with default "yes" for POST.
So you want the implied semantics of `safe: yes' rather than
`redo-safe: yes'? I could live with that.
> I can image CGI author's putting a line for sending a
>Redo-Safe: yes header without code to check for whether the COD
>hardcopy request has been checked, than an Accountable: no header.
I don't know if I agree; predicting the mistakes of CGI authors is a
tricky business. Anyway, I'd like to delay the discussion about the
best name for the response header until the `link rel=source'
vs. `redo-safe' issue is resolved. We need to agree on semantics
first.
> Fote
Koen.