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

Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:08:48 +1100
Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E2BF03F9-3AA2-41E1-815F-F35F0369F5D7@mnot.net>
To: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Re GET, see
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/19

The only exception method is HEAD, as per
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-11#section-3.3



On 19/10/2010, at 8:07 PM, Eric J. Bowman wrote:

> "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.
> 
> -Eric

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 23:09:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:30 GMT