RE: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry

I very much support and look forward to creation of a registry for HTTP methods.

As for the notion that Microsoft allow-lists HTTP methods and "forgot" some, I assume you're referring to the list of supported methods for XMLHTTPRequest?  If that's the case, it's important to note that not all methods should be considered safe for ~script~ to use.  Hence, for security reasons, there's a restriction as to what methods may be used by XMLHTTPRequest.

If there's a specific method currently not permitted by XMLHTTPRequest which you believe should be, please let me know.

Thanks,

Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Internet Explorer

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:00 AM
To: Henrik Nordstrom
Cc: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry


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 21:28:07 UTC