- From: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:25:12 +0000
- To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mirko Gustony <mirko.gustony@gmail.com>, thibault <thibault@miximum.fr>, public-html-comments@w3.org
On 13/12/2011, at 3:27 PM, mike amundsen wrote: > following along my original approach of adding attributes to HTML.FORM > that are converted to HTTP Headers[1], the HTML.FORM@prefer could be > included, too. This would mean servers need to decide how to deal w/ > this situation, too. > > [1] http://amundsen.com/examples/put-delete-forms/#added-attributes > > mca > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com@mamund > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me > being able to specify http headers is of vital importance, IMO. this would alleviate many issues. thanks, cam > > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:24, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> On 2011-12-13 16:16, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 13/12/2011, at 3:09 PM, mike amundsen wrote: >>> >>>> Based on repeated comments about what this issue of what the browser >>>> user-agent *expects* as a return for PUT/DELETE, I wonder if things >>>> would go better if the Prefer header proposal was included in all >>>> this. >>>> >>>> mca >>>> http://amundsen.com/blog/ >>>> http://twitter.com@mamund >>>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me >>>> >>> >>> Personally i don't agree with "Prefer" header but i stated this >>> previously, as it is optional i just choose not to use it. >>> >>> If it satisfies concerns i have no problem referencing it as something >>> people can use. >> >> >> Well, to make this "work", we'd need to define a Preference token, and >> mandate that the browser sends it. >> >> Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 16:25:56 UTC