- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:02:03 +0100
- To: Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Robert Sayre wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> >> RFC2119; >>> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there >>> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a >>> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and >>> carefully weighed before choosing a different course. > > > Sure, let's contrast this text with what we have now. > > "You might help clients out if you send this, no one relies on it, most > people don't bother." > > Does not sound like something that must be "carefully weighed". I claim > that it doesn't matter a lick, unless you're writing a WebDAV server or > something. By all means, opt in to the MAY in that case. Hm. Sending an incomplete Allow header will affect clients that use it. WebDAV clients certainly use it to check for features, and I wouldn't be surprised if some AtomPub clients did as well (to check for PUT). So it seems it *is* harmful not to send the header, or just to send an incomplete list. From a client's p.o.v., given the choice between an incorrect list and no list at all, I'd prefer the latter, though. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 13:02:45 UTC