Comment by CoolAndComposed 7 years ago Just because a server announces HTTP/1.1 doesn't mean it conforms to that specific RFC. 2 comments CoolAndComposed Reply dragonwriter 7 years ago That non-RFC-compliant implementations of HTTP exist irrelevant to what properties HTTP methods are supposed to have, which is the issue under discussion. CoolAndComposed 7 years ago It is compliant to an RFC, just not a specific RFC. That's part of the issue, that's simply taken for granted because of ideology.
dragonwriter 7 years ago That non-RFC-compliant implementations of HTTP exist irrelevant to what properties HTTP methods are supposed to have, which is the issue under discussion. CoolAndComposed 7 years ago It is compliant to an RFC, just not a specific RFC. That's part of the issue, that's simply taken for granted because of ideology.
CoolAndComposed 7 years ago It is compliant to an RFC, just not a specific RFC. That's part of the issue, that's simply taken for granted because of ideology.
That non-RFC-compliant implementations of HTTP exist irrelevant to what properties HTTP methods are supposed to have, which is the issue under discussion.
It is compliant to an RFC, just not a specific RFC. That's part of the issue, that's simply taken for granted because of ideology.