- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:15:33 -0500
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
My take would be to not say anything about this because, as Roy has pointed out before (e.g. [1]), HTTP 1.1 request messages are self-descriptive about the presence or absence of a body independent of the method. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2002JulSep/0031.html Mark. On 1/15/07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > Background at: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ > 2006AprJun/0103> > > Does anybody have any new information / thoughts about this? > > My personal take: it seems like the most expedient thing to do would > be to go through each method defined by 2616 and explicitly state > whether it allows a body or not, so as to remove the ambiguity. Also, > it would be good to recommend that new method definitions (perhaps in > an IANA registry?) also include this information. > > Straw-man list: > GET - no > PUT - yes > DELETE - no > POST - yes > TRACE - yes > OPTIONS - yes > CONNECT - n/a > > Cheers, > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 13:15:43 UTC