W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)

From: Jeffrey Winter <JeffreyWinter@crd.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:32:12 -0500
Message-ID: <3A9933B568A24543B6AD9E02C7E6ADA0C17594@moe.crd.com>
To: "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

> > The only issue with having the OPTIONS method return
> > a Meta-Location: header is that it takes multiple requests
> > to obtain the data, an OPTIONS request to get the uri of the
> > metadata, and a GET on that uri to actually obtain it.  I see
> > this as both beneficial and necessary.
> I don't think that is the only issue. Support for OPTIONS is far less 
> widespread than support for extension request/response headers.

Granted, and this is infact the exact argument forwarded by Costello
in a discussion we had on rest-discuss.  My argument is that any new
headers aren't currently supported either so from that perspective
I don't see an issue.  The real problem is with firewalls
blocking any request using the OPTIONS method, but as metadata driven 
services come on line,  I would have to think that this issue would
go away.
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 10:32:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:37 UTC