W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: ISSUE-75: Is method case-sensitive?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:56:12 -0700
Message-Id: <9FDD381B-0BCD-4CED-8354-A192F4B3EBFB@apple.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> There's a place for making sure you have a path from the current
>> implementations to the new standard, but this isn't it. Specifying  
>> this
>> behaviour well isn't going to cost anything; some implementations  
>> won't
>> be conformant for a little while, but fixing them won't break any
>> existing applications.
>> Besides which, each of those implementations does a different  
>> thing; how
>> do you accurately represent that?
> I wasn't saying the spec had to represent what happens _today_, that's
> obviously impossible since the implementations differ. My point was  
> that
> one of the implementors told you "we might never be able to do  
> this" and
> yet it was still being considered.
> Once an implementor says "can't happen", especially if they give quite
> simple and clear reasons, there's no point going in that direction any
> more. In this particular case, it means there's no point requiring  
> "put"
> to be sent as "put" instead of "PUT" because an implementor has  
> informed
> you that implementors use network libraries that are outside their
> controls and these libraries sometimes convert "put" to "PUT".

Actually, I don't think the network library argument is a very good  
one. If your network library is not capable enough, you should get a  
new one or make your own. And in this case it was presented as purely  
hypothetical, since Mozilla does in fact control their network  
library. I don't buy that a project operated by the same  
organization, hosted on the same server, and under a compatible open  
source license can't be changed.

The argument that is convincing to me is that content currently uses  
"get" and "post" and expects the method to be uppercased.

Received on Saturday, 22 April 2006 23:59:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:21 UTC