- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:27:15 +1100
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
OK. The proposal is now: * In the definition of Allow, change: The Allow entity-header field lists the set of methods supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI. to The Allow entity-header field advertises a set of methods as supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI. * And, remove: This field cannot prevent a client from trying other methods. However, the indications given by the Allow header field value SHOULD be followed. On 03/04/2008, at 9:45 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > ons 2008-04-02 klockan 14:42 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke: >> You mean ... "405 is a more detailed..."? Agreed. > > Yes. Sorry for the obvious typo. > >> Which IMHO means we should remove the "SHOULD" level requirement. > > I claim that it doesn't really matter. SHOULD is a SHOULD (not MUST) > and > implementers who have trouble implementing a SHOULD for some reason is > free to not to as long as they carefully consider the effects of doing > so. SHOULD level requirements is there to clarify what common sense is > and making sure all implementers have about the same idea of what > makes > sense. > > The requirement as such makes sense to be a SHOULD as it does not > make a > lot sense from a protocol perspective to send requests using methods > not > included in the set advertised as supported (if a such set is > advertised). > > With the proposed change in language I do not care either way. The > client requrement may stay or go as far as I am concerned. > > Regards > Henrik > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 02:27:58 UTC