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 22:34:02 -0600
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20101019223402.794832d7.eric@bisonsystems.net>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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

Thanks for the reference, it led me to this, which is the explanation I
was looking for:


*Now* I get it (I'm not dense, just a little slow).  Also, that last
sentence is particularly helpful to me, as I was defining my method
based on my intended use, instead of thinking in terms of extensibility
i.e. re-use...

> >> HTTP methods SHOULD be registered in a document that isn't
> >> specific to an application or other use of HTTP, so that it's
> >> clear that they are not specific to that application or extension.
> > 
> > That's very vague (what does "other use" mean).
> That can be dropped.

Or changed; if the spirit and intent is to think of extensibility.  That
language describes what I was already doing -- defining a new method as
a standalone document -- without alerting me to the pitfall of defining
my method as a reflection of my application, instead of as something of
general use.  Whereas Roy's last sentence caused a forehead-slap moment
for me, that I shouldn't even require an empty entity-body.

IOW, I just took my first shot at defining an HTTP method, and got it
completely wrong right out of the gate; a little guidance would have
made for a better start IMHO.

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 04:34:44 UTC

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