- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:01:48 +1100
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Exactly. We're not here to re-design Allow or come up with a better mechanism; just to clarify what it means today. To reiterate, my proposal: > "The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server > at the time of each request." > > to > > "The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server > at the time of each request, and may not necessarily include all (or > any) methods that the server would actually allow in a request if > presented." Some will argue that that's loosening the requirements of 2616; I don't think I buy that, because there isn't a RFC2119-level requirement about the contents of the header. Thinking about the subsequent discussion, I'm ambivalent about adding a SHOULD-level requirement on the server side WRT completeness; I think the text above stands on its own. Cheers, On 01/03/2008, at 7:04 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > There is no point in arguing this. Look at what has been > implemented so far > and remove the cases that have not. > > ....Roy > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 3 March 2008 02:01:59 UTC