W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > January 2008

Re: GET vs HEAD vs OPTIONS

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 18:44:25 +0200
Cc: <public-appformats@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3F9E3754-A13E-4570-876E-E1B97E2F84F3@iki.fi>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

On Jan 5, 2008, at 13:42, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> Hixie also said that having mod_dav loaded still makes Apache not
>> expose OPTIONS to other modules.
>
> But then you would have to use mod_headers to set the headers anyway  
> in
> a real world setup, since otherwise the calling script would not learn
> whether the request succeeded due to lack of a response header that'd
> allow reading the response; so this does not limit you in any way.  
> Also
> note that doing this you cannot use a CGI script to handle DELETE,  
> PUT,
> etc.


It seems reasonable to assume that if a script can handle DELETE, PUT,  
etc., it can also handle OPTIONS.

The big deal really is POST pre-flight. I don't like the conclusion of  
having to be GETsful in order to work with real-world software, but I  
found it really hard to argue against the constraints Hixie had for  
arriving at that conclusion.

It seems to me that in order to steer away from the GETsfulness in  
POST pre-flight, the WG needs to either:
  * Research OPTIONS support more in the hope of discovering that it  
isn't as bad as so far thought.
OR
  * Adjust requirements so that the current findings about OPTIONS  
support are considered to satisfy the requirements.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 16:44:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:21 UTC