Whoa, whoa, that sounds like you're beating yourself up, and please don't. Maybe I screwed up the tone of my prior comment (if so, sorry!)
A downloadable PDF would be more useful, sure, but already with what's up there, relatively-low-skill users could print the whole page and cut it up. And higher-skill users can read it to follow your thinking to get inspiration and kick-start their work on a similar solution. So even if you never add one more thing to that site, and even if all that happens is half a dozen people a year randomly find it by lucky google query, it's STILL a meaningful contribution to other people that you've made your thinking and your output available. You're already doing good work, both for your mom and for strangers who you'll never know you've reached.
Hugs for you, internet person, and high fives.
And, again, if you want any help with making a dynamic version, hit me up, email in profile. I'd be proud if I got to help this project in any way.
Your website is covered in "contact me", but I see no contact information, and your HN profile is similarly anonymous. Sorry, I couldn't figure it out.
I don't know what skills you lack, but if they're web development skills, and if you want some help with your wonderful project, my email is in my profile. I cannot, alas, do anything about your insufficient-time problem.
I don't disagree with common usage, but common usage is not what's being discussed here.
It is a side effect in programming usage (not just HTTP).
Something is side-effect-free if and only if the only result of it running is that you get an answer. If you ignore the answer, then you cannot tell you ran the function/method/call/whatever. PUT is not side-effect-free.
That said, side-effect-free-ness is an incomplete paraphrasing of the HTTP spec (RFC7231); you'll notice that the only mentions of the phrase "side effect" are giving examples of legal side effects.
Yes, and nullipotency requires x = f(x) = f(f(x)), and four of the methods defined in RFC7231 are expected to be nullipotent, otherwise known as "safe". The point of mentioning that is to highlight the relationship between idempotence and nullipotence.
Literally the reason HTTP verbs are a thing is so that User Agents like Safari can do exactly this. If this weren't a by-design property of the HTTP protocol, we wouldn't even have methods. Read the spec!
It does apply to HTTP idempotency. `x` is the state of the server. `f` is the change to the state of the server that ensues when one makes such-and-such an HTTP call. So taking PUT as an example, `x` is the state before the PUT, `f(x)` is the state after one PUT, and `f(f(x))` is the state after that single PUT is sent twice. Of course in a RFC7231-compliant server, `f(x) = f(f(x))`. Taking GET (or any other nullipotent method) as an example, we also see that in a RFC7231-compliant server, `x = f(x) = f(f(x))`.
A downloadable PDF would be more useful, sure, but already with what's up there, relatively-low-skill users could print the whole page and cut it up. And higher-skill users can read it to follow your thinking to get inspiration and kick-start their work on a similar solution. So even if you never add one more thing to that site, and even if all that happens is half a dozen people a year randomly find it by lucky google query, it's STILL a meaningful contribution to other people that you've made your thinking and your output available. You're already doing good work, both for your mom and for strangers who you'll never know you've reached.
Hugs for you, internet person, and high fives.
And, again, if you want any help with making a dynamic version, hit me up, email in profile. I'd be proud if I got to help this project in any way.