- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Other than that, I'd have to say that I don't care whether a DELETE > does or does not have an effect on a broken CGI script. Obviously > the person installing that script hadn't intended it to be subject > to deletion via HTTP, and the person running the agent that performed > the DELETE action obviously didn't have a clue as to what they were doing. > It is this type of disconnect that the protocol should just punt on and > simply rely on outside human action to resolve the problem. > > [Note: For a WebDAV server, a real DELETE on the CGI script would > be on a different URL than that used by existing GET/POST references, > so this won't be an interoperabilty problem in general.] This would be exactly my point ... if a new method is sent to a server which doesn't support the application which uses the new method, so what? Brain dead client application gets what it deserves ... a brain dead response. Dave Morris
Received on Monday, 10 August 1998 03:04:27 UTC