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

Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:17:36 +1100
Cc: "John Kemp" <john@jkemp.net>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7B688DB2-E922-423F-804A-C290F1AD0B94@mnot.net>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

I'd note that the issue was raised because some people read the  
phrasing as requiring all possible methods to be sent, and certainly  
some implementations try to do this; e.g.,

   http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=32561
   http://oldsite.webdav.org/mod_dav/bugs/index.php3?id=134

IMO we need to clarify this text so it's unambiguous. I know people  
would *like* to depend upon the values in Allow as a complete set, but  
that's not what implementations do, and it's actually very hard to do  
in any case.

FWIW, I like "the" -> "a"; it's more elegant than my proposal. I'm  
less convinced that it's necessary / good to loosen the SHOULD on  
clients; this sort of thing is what SHOULD is for.

Cheers,


On 04/03/2008, at 3:28 AM, Mark Baker wrote:

>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:19 AM, John Kemp <john@jkemp.net> wrote:
>>> I would say that "*the* set of methods" is clear enough; it doesn't
>>> allow a subset.
>>
>> You're right - so we could change the "the" to an "a" and be done?
>>
>> "The Allow entity-header field lists a set of methods supported by  
>> the
>>
>> resource identified by the Request-URI."
>
> Do we have to bother?  Even with "the", there's nothing preventing a
> server from changing the methods it supports from one minute to the
> next, and therefore no guarantee that "*the* set" is actually *the*
> set at any given point in time.
>
> Mark.
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 02:17:54 GMT

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