- From: Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:18:56 +0100 (BST)
- To: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> That is a waste of space. The spec should say why methods exist and > that only known safe methods can be used without user intervention. > (Intervention includes such things a specific configuration prior > to running the application, not just pop-up boxes.) > That is what HTTP and HTML already requires. What it should not do > is list a small set of methods and say implementations MUST (NOT) > implement them -- that is none of your business and simply sets up > the implementers to be fooled by unexpected extensions. > I agree here. However it seems the WEB-API is more interested in documenting the choices made by browser vendors regarding issues such as security or the way they interpret HTTP rather than producing a higher level specification that would follow the spirit of the HTTP RFC which would push them to modify their implementation. Basically, I've seen a few times now some regular of the WEB-API group saying "we've been doing that way for a while now. It works so there is no reason to change and break implementations". Therefore the ultimate purpose of that WG is fairly unclear to me. - Sylvain
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 07:19:06 UTC