- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:48:33 -0600
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > >> New methods SHOULD explain how conditional request headers [ref] > >> affect the response (if there is any effect). > > > > Wow. I always thought they apply to any method; thus extensions > > methods can't be special. Maybe this deserves a separate issue? > > Well, we could say that 304 is specific to GET/HEAD, and all other > methods use 412 for failed conditions, but that bit of glue seems to > be missing ATM. > This sounds like good advice. Perhaps I'm speaking out-of-turn because I'm just getting started, but what I'm thinking of for IDLE would make must-revalidate meaningless because it's implied by the method; a match isn't 304 or 412, but instead results in an open connection. While the semantics of conditional-request headers remain unchanged, the results vary from those of other methods, and should therefore be documented. -Eric
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 04:49:14 UTC