- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:27:36 -0700
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 24 July 2014 08:14, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > IMHO it be more correct to say simply that :path may be omitted on > OPTIONS and represents a request for "*" asterisk-form? as opposed to a > 0-length :path field which represents the path-empty case. That would permit a more correct reconstruction of the original 1.1 request. I think that I need a second opinion before making such a change. What do others think?
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 15:28:04 UTC