- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:42:03 -0800
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Web Application Formats Working Group WG" <public-appformats@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF0EA881BF.61D2B476-ON882573C6.00664A5D-882573C6.0066BA6C@us.ibm.com>
Anne,
It is true that the web developer might choose to put the access control
information within XML content via a PI entity body might hold an access
control PI. In that case, the only way to go is GET. However, for non-XML
workflows such as JSON (and that's what the Ajax guys are focused on these
days), then they have to use the HTTP header approach, in which case HEAD
is the preferred way to go if all you want to do is determine if POST is
allowed and you don't want a content block sent back to the client.
Jon
"Anne van
Kesteren"
<annevk@opera.com To
> Jon Ferraiolo/Menlo Park/IBM@IBMUS,
"Web Application Formats Working
01/04/2008 10:29 Group WG"
AM <public-appformats@w3.org>
cc
Subject
Re: ISSUE-18: Is JSONRequest an
acceptable alternative to the
current model? [Access Control]
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:15:32 +0100, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> Based on what Kris says above, it seems to me that both HEAD and GET need
> to be supported in order to comply with the HTTP spec.
It seems that Kris was not aware that the entity body of the response is
significant and that therefore there is a difference. I mentioned this in
my earlier reply to you.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic28524.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Friday, 4 January 2008 18:45:04 UTC