W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1998

Re: OPTIONS and TRACE vis a vis CGI applications

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:08:58 -0500 (EST)
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: http working group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980312090318.7683A-100000@alice.agranat.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5458

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, David W. Morris wrote:

> It is my sense from list postings that a TRACE or OPTIONS request which
> referenced a specific resource which a server handed to an external
> application such as a CGI program should be handed to that program 
> for handling.
> That is:
>    OPTIONS /cgi-bin/somescript HTTP/1.1
> or
>    TRACE /cgi-bin/somescript HTTP/1.1
> should be handled by the application which would respond to a GET or HEAD
> of the same resource.

  I would agree for OPTIONS, since it is probably the capabilities of the
CGI or other sub-server that the requestor is interested in (although my
experience has usually been that CGIs often respond as though the method
were GET or POST because the authors don't check).

  I can't think of any reason why TRACE would require the participation of
the resource - it's purpose is just to reflect the headers as received,
and the server itself can do that just fine.
Received on Thursday, 12 March 1998 06:12:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:04 UTC