W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: i19 Bodies on GET (and other) requests

From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:18:35 -0600
Message-ID: <45AB46EB.1070502@rowe-clan.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> Background at:
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006AprJun/0103>
> 
> Does anybody have any new information / thoughts about this?
> 
> My personal take: it seems like the most expedient thing to do would be
> to go through each method defined by 2616 and explicitly state whether
> it allows a body or not, so as to remove the ambiguity. Also, it would
> be good to recommend that new method definitions (perhaps in an IANA
> registry?) also include this information.
> 
> Straw-man list:
> GET - no
> PUT - yes
> DELETE - no
> POST - yes
> OPTIONS - yes

I can put xml descriptors of the desired data to any of these requests.
Any time you can plug in ?query_args in some possibly meaningful way,
you can do the same with a post body.  But I'd have to review the spec
to determine this is absolutely true of GET, DELETE and OPTIONS.

> TRACE - yes

But TRACE explicitly disallows it (Apache supports it with an explicit
toggle, for doing echo testing and validation in an administrator
controlled manner, and we spell out the option breaks the spec.)

> CONNECT - n/a

I'd agree with you, I can't resolve a meaning under this context.
Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 09:19:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT