- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:19:08 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 22.09.2010 20:05, Jonas Sicking wrote: > ... > For what it's worth, I think "simple" is meant as "Must be handled by > servers today as HTML implementations can already send this request > cross site". Not as the HTTP definition of "must/should not have side > effects". > ... Yes. That's why I think it needs just rephrasing. > That said, I don't feel strongly either way of if PROPFIND should be > preflighted or not. But we would definitely have to ask "are you sure > that servers follow the spec and don't have side effects". I'll note > that it's well known that GET requests often have side effects despite > http saying they shouldn't. Understood. For GET I'm tempted to say: anybody who still hasn't learned about it deserves breakage. For PROPFIND (and other methods defined to be "safe"): it really doesn't make sense to do a preflight OPTIONS for PROPFIND. Both are defined to be safe. Both could have broken server implementations. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 18:26:33 UTC