- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:14:23 +0100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > On Mar 11, 2008, at 1:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> My understanding is that a proposal along these lines* is acceptable, >>> with one exception; Julian believes that if we do this, we should >>> also relax the client-side requirement. >> >> Yes. >> >>> One way to do that would be to change "SHOULD"->"should" (i.e., make >>> it advisory text, instead of a requirement). >>> Thoughts? >>> ... >> >> I don't think that lowercasing the requirement is sufficient; it's >> still a requirement. My proposal is to get rid of it, so to drop: >> >> "However, the indications given by the Allow header field value SHOULD >> be followed." >> >> completely. > > +1 > > ....Roy OK, here's my proposal: Change "This field cannot prevent a client from trying other methods. However, the indications given by the Allow header field value SHOULD be followed. The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server at the time of each request." to "This field cannot prevent a client from trying other methods. The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server at the time of each request, and may not necessarily include all (or any) methods that the server would actually allow in a request if presented." This relaxes the server requirement (reflecting reality), and accordingly removes the requirement for clients to trust the information. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 12:14:49 UTC