- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:24:41 -0700
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On mån, 2007-08-13 at 09:37 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >>> On sön, 2007-08-12 at 21:02 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> >>>> With the amount of OPTIONS requests sent out today by WebDAV >>>> clients, >>>> I'd really be surprised if there are important pieces of >>>> software left >>>> that cause side effects upon OPTIONS. >>> >>> There is pleny, but also very unlikely WebDAV or PATCH would be >>> used on >>> such resources. >> >> WebDAV clients routinely use OPTIONS to detect whether they *can* use >> WebDAV on a resource. Think Microsoft Office (and don't tell me >> that's >> not widely used :-). > > Yes, but it requires the user to take some action to activate the > WebDAV > client, which he isn't very likely to do against random CGI URLs other > websites. > > Sure it may happen, but not in a context where it's expected to yield > any directly meaningful results. Folks, this is an irrelevant conversation. HTTP is not defined by individual broken implementations, and certainly never by broken CGI scripts. The standard needs to reflect how PROPERLY implemented applications can interoperate, not how the least capable programmer of the day makes mistakes. Broken implementations can be fixed much faster than a thousand vendors can agree on a standard. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 18:31:56 UTC