Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST"

Julian Reschke wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> It's probably a good idea to implement them, in a write-only server they
>> could consistently return 404.
> 
> That's probably the safest approach.

I was thinking the "general purpose server" comment was meant to allow
for things like having an HTTP server that's only there to provide an
XML-RPC interface to something. Since XML-RPC only uses POST, there'd be
no reason for it to support GET/HEAD, but since it only expects to talk
to XML-RPC clients, not HTTP clients in general, it wouldn't be a
"general purpose server", so returning 501 for GET/HEAD would be
perfectly reasonable.

-- Dan