On Tuesday 18 Jun 2002 2:15 pm, R. David Murray wrote: > > > RFC 2616 section 9.4 states that "HEAD" is identical to "GET" in this > > > respect, and both should have no side effects. > > This bugged me the first time this discussion went around, and I > feel impelled to clearify it now, even though it is a little > tangential to the core of the discussion. I guess I'm just a > precisionist when it comes to terminology <grin>.
Yes, you are precisely correct. Thanks. > So it seems to me that some of the concern I have seen in Zope code > with avoiding "write on read", where a GET request would otherwise > trigger the one-time initialization of something in the database, > is misplaced if the concern that motivates it is adhering to this > spec. Yes, I dont think this is a problem. > NB: There seems to be a small bug in the spec, in that it does not say > that any sequence of GET and HEAD requests on the same URI should > be idempotent, but that is clearly the intent. > > PS: somehow, I don't think the spec writers thought > much about hit counters... I like the phrase 'largely idempotent' to refer to what we want from a GET or a HEAD. A page with a hit counter is 'largely idempotent'. _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )