W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2020

Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:10:52 +0100
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2c9e9983-f98a-f259-ba9c-c2fc1e6d1d4d@gmx.de>
Am 19.11.2020 um 09:19 schrieb Greg Wilkins:
> ...
> Then why don't we just define the semantics of  GET's may have bodies.
 > ...

My understanding is that we won't be able to do that, because it would
not work everywhere. If we found out that not to be true, it would be an

> A client that wishes to send a SEARCH or a GET with a body will equally
> have to expect a 4xx if something in the path doesn't expect either.
>   The main difference is that a GET with a body may receive a response
> that simply ignored the body and the client may not be able to determine
> that.  But then equally it is not possible to tell if a SEARCH method
> has been simply routed to a GET implementation and the body equally
> ignored.   If this is a concern, then perhaps defining a response header
> that indicates the request body was considered is a better way forward?

The subtle difference here is that a server that ignores the body on GET
currently is conformant, while a server that treats SEARCH as GET is buggy.

The suggestion with the response header field although is interesting.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2020 09:11:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 19 November 2020 09:11:07 UTC