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 22:48:33 -0600
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20101019224833.cf3cd18a.eric@bisonsystems.net>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> New methods SHOULD explain how conditional request headers [ref]
> >> affect the response (if there is any effect).
> > 
> > Wow. I always thought they apply to any method; thus extensions
> > methods can't be special. Maybe this deserves a separate issue?
> Well, we could say that 304 is specific to GET/HEAD, and all other
> methods use 412 for failed conditions, but that bit of glue seems to
> be missing ATM. 

This sounds like good advice.  Perhaps I'm speaking out-of-turn because
I'm just getting started, but what I'm thinking of for IDLE would make
must-revalidate meaningless because it's implied by the method; a match
isn't 304 or 412, but instead results in an open connection.  While the
semantics of conditional-request headers remain unchanged, the results
vary from those of other methods, and should therefore be documented.

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 04:49:14 UTC

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