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

Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:02:03 +0100
Message-ID: <47B43BCB.2020503@gmx.de>
To: Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>

Robert Sayre wrote:
> 
> 
> On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>>
>> RFC2119;
>>> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there 
>>> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a 
>>> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and 
>>> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> 
> 
> Sure, let's contrast this text with what we have now.
> 
> "You might help clients out if you send this, no one relies on it, most 
> people don't bother."
> 
> Does not sound like something that must be "carefully weighed". I claim 
> that it doesn't matter a lick, unless you're writing a WebDAV server or 
> something. By all means, opt in to the MAY in that case.

Hm.

Sending an incomplete Allow header will affect clients that use it. 
WebDAV clients certainly use it to check for features, and I wouldn't be 
surprised if some AtomPub clients did as well (to check for PUT).

So it seems it *is* harmful not to send the header, or just to send an 
incomplete list.

 From a client's p.o.v., given the choice between an incorrect list and 
no list at all, I'd prefer the latter, though.

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 13:02:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT