W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Using OPTIONS for optional feature discovery -- advice

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:51:56 -0700
Message-Id: <3A97424E-97FE-11D8-BE7B-000A95BD86C0@mnot.net>
To: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Just curious - does anyone know of OPTIONS being used "in the wild" at 
all?

If so, how?


On Apr 20, 2004, at 6:21 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>
>
> I am working on the next version of the HTTP PATCH method proposal:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-00.txt
>
> We've had some discussions amongst WebDAV people of the best way for 
> clients to discover server feature support.  In this case, the client 
> wants to discover:
>  - if the server supports PATCH at all
>  - if so, what delta or diff formats can be used on this resource.
>
> For that purpose, is a new header on OPTIONS still considered to be 
> the way to go?  Can a server omit this header on responses to OPTIONS 
> * if it only supports the feature in part of its namespace?  (E.g. if 
> a java servlet supplies support for this feature only in the namespace 
> hosted by that servlet)
>
> Any other comments on the draft are welcome as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisa Dusseault
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 23:52:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:30 GMT