Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST"

Dan Winship wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> It's probably a good idea to implement them, in a write-only server they
>>> could consistently return 404.
>> That's probably the safest approach.
> I was thinking the "general purpose server" comment was meant to allow
> for things like having an HTTP server that's only there to provide an
> XML-RPC interface to something. Since XML-RPC only uses POST, there'd be
> no reason for it to support GET/HEAD, but since it only expects to talk
> to XML-RPC clients, not HTTP clients in general, it wouldn't be a
> "general purpose server", so returning 501 for GET/HEAD would be
> perfectly reasonable.

Yes, that's what I would assume as well.

The only really really important thing is that

- the server doesn't misinterpret GET as POST, and

- it understands that HEAD == GET minus the response body.

BR, Julian

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 22:32:16 UTC