- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:18:42 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 2014-07-24 17:27, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 24 July 2014 08:14, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >> IMHO it be more correct to say simply that :path may be omitted on >> OPTIONS and represents a request for "*" asterisk-form? as opposed to a >> 0-length :path field which represents the path-empty case. > > That would permit a more correct reconstruction of the original 1.1 request. > > I think that I need a second opinion before making such a change. What > do others think? I believe this is right, but it seems to me we really need a set of examples to make sure we got everything right. We also should consider an erratum for 1.1 that discourages use of the asterisk form for any new functionality. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 17:19:15 UTC