W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:07:56 -0600
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20101019030756.a849cd4b.eric@bisonsystems.net>
"Anne van Kesteren" wrote:
> Yeah, for XMLHttpRequest we had to special case GET/HEAD to omit any  
> passed request entity bodies. We do not want to add more methods
> there.

OK, I understand that.  But does this mean that the no-entity-body
requirement for GET/HEAD is a historical mistake, or was there some
reason for parsing these requests differently?  What I'm experimenting
with is an IDLE method (IMAP has one) very similar to GET, so I'm
trying to understand why I can't just copy the definition of GET as a
starting point.  I'm convinced by the responses *not* to do that, but
wondering what gotcha may be lurking.

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 09:08:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC