Surely nobody was able to watch this NDC video to the end. Right? #megacringe youtube.com/watch?v=JUMjxnKz…
3
@jreschke Understood. I'm failing at finding an example description of status code handling in the current spec though
1
@jreschke Expectations for specifying PUT and DELETE response handling far exceed what's in the spec for GET and POST. Correct?
1
Great question, thoughtful advice: “Choosing the best technology for my website” beta.branch.com/choosing-the… (via @chris_stevenson)
1
7
4
“@nahi: CRuby users, please give a 5 minutes look. Guaranteed! Excellent summary of JRuby for Rubyists by @headius. slideshare.net/CharlesNutter…”
2
5
@jon_moore @mamund IMO, adding support for any additional kind of header will open a can of worms
@mamund My feeling is that once you start adding this one header, it makes perfect sense to add support for all of them
@mamund Understood. So they won't send an If-match header, which maybe OK, or may not be – it's the server's task to decide
2
@mamund Not because I actually believe it's better, but because I think it has a better chance of acceptance
1
@mamund I fully understand your reasoning, but I suggest to go with the approach you describe in your section 4.6 instead
1
@niko_nava At the moment, I'd say it's about as good as any equivalent homegrown JSON format with the same semantics
@mamund Or, of course, the other way around (I do not want to hijack anything) /cc @jon_moore
@mamund Is it OK to incorporate (i.e. steal mercilessly) from your proposal? //cc @jon_moore
1
@jon_moore @mamund Cool. I've created a page with some placeholder text in the W3C wiki: w3.org/wiki/User:Stilkov/ISS… //cc @jreschke
1
@jreschke So if we agree that the complex proposal should be postponed, it's still time to submit a simpler one?
2
@jreschke Not being knowledge about W3C process: w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issue… indicates the deadline for alternate proposals has passed?
1
1
@ufried Played with it for a while, does not seem to get in the way
1