[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: Bob Foster <bob@objfac.com>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] [MAILER-DAEMON@reutershealth.com: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: lists.org.xml: host not found)]
- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 00:31:25 -0400
- Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- In-reply-to: <036801c357cb$4144a060$1401a8c0@snobird>
- References: <20030731170625.GZ9926@skunk.reutershealth.com> <036801c357cb$4144a060$1401a8c0@snobird>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Bob Foster scripsit:
> As long as no further cans of Coke drop no matter how many times the GET is
> invoked, the GET is idempotent.
Oh yes, quite so. I was thinking only of the case where each GET
produces a new can. But in any event, the correct point d'appui is
"safety", not "idempotency".
--
"By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall jcowan@reutershealth.com
have neither the Ring nor me!" --Frodo http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
|
