Re: PROPFIND vs "simple methods", was: [CORS] HTTP error codes in preflight response from Julian Reschke on 2010-09-22 (public-webapps@w3.org from July to September 2010)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:29:50 +0200
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4C9A592E.2030504@gmx.de>

On 22.09.2010 21:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:19:08 +0200, Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> We don't want to keep updating the "safe" list. So they're all "unsafe".
> Or maybe not "unsafe", just not compatible with HTML forms.

I personally think that's not the best choice.

But anyway, please consider rephrasing the spec so that the rational 
doesn't pretend it has anything to do with safeness (lack of side-effects).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 19:30:29 UTC