W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Updated Proposal: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:33:11 +0200
Message-ID: <47FCFDD7.9000603@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Not clear. My take (as a native American speaker who has been corrupted 
> to speak en-au sometimes) is that 'the' implies that there is only one 
> possible set.
> However, I'm not that fussed about it; I'm happy to give it to the 
> editors to decide (and I suspect they'll change it to 'the').
> Unless someone has a good technical argument otherwise, and is 
> passionate enough about it to hold us up, we'll let them decide.

I just re-read the thread, and it seems Henrik's proposal was the most 

      [...] lists the set of methods advertised as supported ...

So we keep the "the" (meaning it's not totally random), but we clarify 
that the server may have reasons not to include all.

So that's the change (*) I'll apply in a few minutes, in the hope that 
we can finally close this one.

That being said, would anybody object if I changed the example from

        Allow: GET, HEAD, PUT


        Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, PUT

-- I really can't think of a reason not to advertise OPTIONS, and we 
don't want people encourage not to support it, right?

BR, Julian

(*) Plus the change for the client requirements.
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 17:34:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC