- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:26:14 -0400
- To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Er, :authority? On 24 Jul 2014, at 11:49 am, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote: > I think for OPTIONS the client can omit all but the :method pseudo header. In any case, I'm +1 on clarifying this in the spec, particularly for "OPTIONS *". > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 24 July 2014 08:14, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >>> IMHO it be more correct to say simply that :path may be omitted on >>> OPTIONS and represents a request for "*" asterisk-form? as opposed to a >>> 0-length :path field which represents the path-empty case. >> >> That would permit a more correct reconstruction of the original 1.1 request. >> >> I think that I need a second opinion before making such a change. What >> do others think? >> > > _________________________________________________________ > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 17:26:50 UTC