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

Re: Extension HTTP methods

From: Gorm Haug Eriksen <gormer@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:24:04 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Pete Kirkham" <mach.elf@gmail.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tavoqelzm2jbu9@id-c0364.oslo.opera.com> 

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:56:20 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:

> So please leave this to those who actually control HTTP + extensions,  
> which is the IETF.

IETF should make an RFC much like <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4229.txt>  
describing the http methods/verbs they actually control and the  
semantically meaning and requirements for them. Without this knowledge  
it's very hard for this group and the browser vendors to agree upon  
behaviour. E.g. should an entity-body be passed with the verb? How should  
the browser handle content negotiation?

The XHR specification could point to this RFC and give some advice with  
regards to which verbs must/may be supported. In addition to this the XHR  
specification must describe how arbitrary verbs not in this RFC should be  
handled (IMO they should be handled like GET's).

Cheers,

- Gorm Haug Eriksen
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 12:24:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:55 GMT