- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:52:04 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
ons 2008-04-09 klockan 19:33 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke: > That being said, would anybody object if I changed the example from > > Allow: GET, HEAD, PUT > > to > > Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, PUT Ofcourse not. It's just an informal example and does not change anything. My answer would even be the same if you proposed throwing in an extension method there such as PROPFIND. > -- I really can't think of a reason not to advertise OPTIONS, and we > don't want people encourage not to support it, right? Then you maybe want to do something about "The methods GET and HEAD MUST be supported by all general-purpose servers. All other methods are OPTIONAL". Changing the text in an Allow example does not make a difference for this. Regards Henrik
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 15:55:05 UTC