Subject: Re: Using OPTIONS for optional feature discovery -- advice

From: "Hugh Sloan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:08:13 -0700

Yes, there have been some sub-Sahara tribes known to use OPTIONS to induce
flatulence
prior to the mating ritual.  

Hugh  J. Sloan III
Managing Director & Founder
Sand Hill EC
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SandHillEC/
http://www.ryze.com/go/SandHillEC

Privileged legal information, this is intended for recipient only and not
for distribution
to third parties.  All information is confidential.

> [Original Message]
> From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
> To: HTTP working group <[email-masked]>
> Date: 4/26/04 7:52:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Using OPTIONS for optional feature discovery -- advice
>
>
> Just curious - does anyone know of OPTIONS being used "in the wild" at 
> all?
>
> If so, how?
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2004, at 6:21 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I am working on the next version of the HTTP PATCH method proposal:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-00.txt
> >
> > We've had some discussions amongst WebDAV people of the best way for 
> > clients to discover server feature support.  In this case, the client 
> > wants to discover:
> >  - if the server supports PATCH at all
> >  - if so, what delta or diff formats can be used on this resource.
> >
> > For that purpose, is a new header on OPTIONS still considered to be 
> > the way to go?  Can a server omit this header on responses to OPTIONS 
> > * if it only supports the feature in part of its namespace?  (E.g. if 
> > a java servlet supplies support for this feature only in the namespace 
> > hosted by that servlet)
> >
> > Any other comments on the draft are welcome as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lisa Dusseault
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/