- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:13:06 +0200
- To: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
- CC: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
John Kemp wrote: > David Morris wrote: >> >> This is fun ;-:) ... following the logic below (I agree with the >> differentiation between 'a' and 'the'), the list in a 405 response >> should be THE list for that particular context ... While there may be >> other methods allowed, even in the given context, the server should never >> provide a different list for the same conditions. Note that Henrik's proposal (that I'm just about to apply :-)) differs from Mark's not only in "the" vs "a". The original text is: "The Allow entity-header field lists the set of methods supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI." Henrik proposed to change that to: "The Allow response-header field lists the set of methods advertised as supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI." Mark's proposal was: "The Allow response-header field advertises a set of methods as supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI." I don't really think it makes a big difference; so Mark can weigh in as a chair if he feels that his proposal reflects the consensus better than Henrik's. > That's true. So for a given resource, there is no (or not necessarily, > anyway) single list of allowed methods. The list returned is always > contextual, and the context may vary (while the Request-URI remains the > same). That's why we introduced the term "advertised". > ... BTW: I would oppose any attempts to make this sound as if the allowed set is expected to change frequently. Do not forget that 405 != 403 and also 405 != 501. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 18:13:58 UTC