W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [XHR] Comments on the latest public working draft

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:46:35 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ua8nzxjw64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:25:42 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:26:07 +0200, Julian Reschke  
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>> - On the send algorithm, step 4 ("If stored method is GET act as if  
>>>>> the data argument is null"), why only GET and not HEAD, also?
>>>>  In order to subset HTTP as little as possible.
>>>
>>> Well, *if* you subset it, please make it in a consistent way. If the  
>>> subsetting applies to GET, it should also apply to HEAD.
>>  Would it stop with HEAD or would there be more methods to consider  
>> going forward? If it's just HEAD I suppose we could add it, yes.
>
> It would stop with HEAD, because HEAD and GET by definition should do  
> the same thing (except for HEAD not returning the response body).

Actually, it seems that implementations do pass it through for HEAD. It is  
just GET where they don't and given that we can't allow it for cross-site  
GET requests anyway I think forward consistency is desirable. More  
background information is available in this thread:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Dec/thread.html#msg8


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 08:47:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 May 2008 08:47:06 GMT