- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:04:50 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > ... >> It also cannot be implemented in general over reverse-proxies which >> forward requests to different servers depending on the URL. >> > OPTIONS * is a difficult problem; I don't really have a solution to it, > nor do I know of any consensus on "the right thing" to do about it. The > requirement is only a SHOULD, since obviously some implementations can't > do this. I think it's understood that under many cirumstances, "OPTIONS *" will simply not work. Making it a "SHOULD" requirement suggests to clients that they reasonably can expect it to work most of the time; however the *opposite* is true. Clients can not rely on "OPTIONS *" working as described, and it's also not clear what the value of this feature is. The client can't rely on PATCH being available on every resource, nor can it rely on specific delta formats being supported on all resources. As such, it should be a "MAY", or even better, the description should be removed altogether. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear about a use case where the response from "OPTIONS *" will indeed help the client in any way. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 21 May 2004 16:05:43 UTC