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

Re: Updated Proposal: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:52:04 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1207842724.31609.13.camel@HenrikLaptop>

ons 2008-04-09 klockan 19:33 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:

> That being said, would anybody object if I changed the example from
>         Allow: GET, HEAD, PUT
> to
>         Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, PUT

Ofcourse not. It's just an informal example and does not change
anything. My answer would even be the same if you proposed throwing in
an extension method there such as PROPFIND.

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

Then you maybe want to do something about "The methods GET and HEAD MUST
be supported by all general-purpose servers. All other methods are
OPTIONAL". Changing the text in an Allow example does not make a
difference for this.

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 15:55:05 UTC

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