Comment by NewEntryHN 7 years ago GET requests aren't supposed to be idempotent. They're not supposed to change state in a first place. 4 comments NewEntryHN Reply dragonwriter 7 years ago > GET requests aren't supposed to be idempotent.RFC 7231 disagrees.> They're not supposed to change state in a first place.Well, yeah, GET is supposed to be safe, but all safe methods are also idempotent. CoolAndComposed 7 years ago Just because a server announces HTTP/1.1 doesn't mean it conforms to that specific RFC. dragonwriter 7 years ago That non-RFC-compliant implementations of HTTP exist irrelevant to what properties HTTP methods are supposed to have, which is the issue under discussion. 1 reply →
dragonwriter 7 years ago > GET requests aren't supposed to be idempotent.RFC 7231 disagrees.> They're not supposed to change state in a first place.Well, yeah, GET is supposed to be safe, but all safe methods are also idempotent. CoolAndComposed 7 years ago Just because a server announces HTTP/1.1 doesn't mean it conforms to that specific RFC. dragonwriter 7 years ago That non-RFC-compliant implementations of HTTP exist irrelevant to what properties HTTP methods are supposed to have, which is the issue under discussion. 1 reply →
CoolAndComposed 7 years ago Just because a server announces HTTP/1.1 doesn't mean it conforms to that specific RFC. dragonwriter 7 years ago That non-RFC-compliant implementations of HTTP exist irrelevant to what properties HTTP methods are supposed to have, which is the issue under discussion. 1 reply →
dragonwriter 7 years ago That non-RFC-compliant implementations of HTTP exist irrelevant to what properties HTTP methods are supposed to have, which is the issue under discussion. 1 reply →
> GET requests aren't supposed to be idempotent.
RFC 7231 disagrees.
> They're not supposed to change state in a first place.
Well, yeah, GET is supposed to be safe, but all safe methods are also idempotent.
Just because a server announces HTTP/1.1 doesn't mean it conforms to that specific RFC.
That non-RFC-compliant implementations of HTTP exist irrelevant to what properties HTTP methods are supposed to have, which is the issue under discussion.
1 reply →