- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:40:34 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Heh.. I guess I'd just as soon read the RFC's :-) ... but I understand your point. - James Julian Reschke wrote: > > Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >> On mån, 2007-08-06 at 17:28 -0700, James M Snell wrote: >>> I don't see what this would buy us. >> >> - Coordination between HTTP extensions, and avoidance of duplicate work. > > Yes. > >> - An easier path for people to find the meaning of a method without >> everyone having to index the RFCs themselves. > > Also, avoiding that people white-list HTTP methods and then forget some > (yes, Microsoft & Opera, I'm talking to you! :-). > > BTW, there's > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/common-index.html#rfc.index.M>. But of > course that's not a substitute for a proper registry. > > Best regards, Julian > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 16:40:41 UTC