- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:31:34 +0100
- To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
- CC: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Dan Winship wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>> It's probably a good idea to implement them, in a write-only server they >>> could consistently return 404. >> That's probably the safest approach. > > I was thinking the "general purpose server" comment was meant to allow > for things like having an HTTP server that's only there to provide an > XML-RPC interface to something. Since XML-RPC only uses POST, there'd be > no reason for it to support GET/HEAD, but since it only expects to talk > to XML-RPC clients, not HTTP clients in general, it wouldn't be a > "general purpose server", so returning 501 for GET/HEAD would be > perfectly reasonable. Yes, that's what I would assume as well. The only really really important thing is that - the server doesn't misinterpret GET as POST, and - it understands that HEAD == GET minus the response body. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 22:32:16 UTC