W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2003


From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:09:52 -0800
To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Accidentally caught by the spam filter. I've added
rousskov@measurement-factory.com to the accept2 list.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@measurement-factory.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:51 PM
To: Scott Lawrence
Cc: Larry Masinter; 'Lisa Dusseault'; 'Webdav WG'; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: OPTIONS *

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Scott Lawrence wrote:

> >    If the Request-URI is an asterisk ("*"), the OPTIONS request is
> >    intended to apply to the server in general rather than to a
> >    specific resource. Since a server's communication options
> >    typically depend on the resource, the "*" request is only
> >    useful as a "ping" or "no-op" type of method; it does nothing
> >    beyond allowing the client to test the capabilities of the
> >    server. For example, this can be used to test a proxy for
> >    HTTP/1.1 compliance (or lack thereof).
> >
> > So there seems to be some assumption that HTTP/1.1 compliance has
> > something to do with implementing OPTIONS (otherwise how could it
> > be used as a test for HTTP/1.1 compliance?).
> Regardless of whether or not you get an error (or even which one you
> get), you still get the servers claimed HTTP version in the response
> line.
> I'm not sure what more that paragraph needs to say, or what's unclear
> about it.

What confuses people is probably that the text says "to test for
compliance" rather than saying "to detect HTTP version". Since most
HTTP/1.1 implementations are not HTTP/1.1 compliant but are using
HTTP/1.1 version, the two statements are different.


Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:10:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:28 UTC