- From: Gorm Haug Eriksen <gormer@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:24:04 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Pete Kirkham" <mach.elf@gmail.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:56:20 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > So please leave this to those who actually control HTTP + extensions, > which is the IETF. IETF should make an RFC much like <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4229.txt> describing the http methods/verbs they actually control and the semantically meaning and requirements for them. Without this knowledge it's very hard for this group and the browser vendors to agree upon behaviour. E.g. should an entity-body be passed with the verb? How should the browser handle content negotiation? The XHR specification could point to this RFC and give some advice with regards to which verbs must/may be supported. In addition to this the XHR specification must describe how arbitrary verbs not in this RFC should be handled (IMO they should be handled like GET's). Cheers, - Gorm Haug Eriksen
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 12:24:17 UTC