W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: #545 requirement on implementing methods according to their semantics

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:51:32 +0100
Message-ID: <52E65654.3050408@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2014-01-03 10:38, Julian Reschke wrote:
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25.html#rfc.section.4.1>:
>
>
> "All general-purpose servers MUST support the methods GET and HEAD. All
> other methods are OPTIONAL; when implemented, a server MUST implement
> the above methods according to the semantics defined for them in Section
> 4.3."
>
> This ignores methods not defined in Part 2. How about:
>
> "All general-purpose servers MUST support the methods GET and HEAD. All
> other methods are OPTIONAL; when implemented, a server MUST implement
> the above methods according to the semantics defined in their relevant
> specifications (as listed in the HTTP Method Registry maintained by
> IANA, described in Section 8.1.)".
>
> Best regards, Julian

Roy comments in the ticket 
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/545>:

> Hmm, this is actually covered by p1 2.5 Conformance and Error Handling:
>
>    A recipient MUST interpret a received protocol element according to
>    the semantics defined for it by this specification, including
>    extensions to this specification, unless the recipient has determined
>    (through experience or configuration) that the sender incorrectly
>    implements what is implied by those semantics.
>
> Perhaps we can just delete the last bit above:
>
>     All general-purpose servers MUST support the methods GET and HEAD. All other methods are OPTIONAL. ; when implemented, a server MUST implement the above methods according to the semantics defined for them in Section 4.3.

(so the proposal is to remove the "; when implemented, a server MUST 
implement the above methods according to the semantics defined for them 
in Section 4.3").

I'm happy with this change, as it removes a statement that potentially 
causes confusion.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 27 January 2014 12:52:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:23 UTC