Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Review implications of OPTIONS cacheability #510

Closed
rob-metalinkage opened this issue Oct 29, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Review implications of OPTIONS cacheability #510

rob-metalinkage opened this issue Oct 29, 2018 · 4 comments
Assignees
@RubenVerborgh @larsgsvensson @nicholascar
Labels
change-proposal due for closing Issue that has been addressed and it is going to be closed if there are no objection within 6 days profile-negotiation requires discussion Issue to be discussed in a telecon (group or plenary)
Projects
Content Negotiation by Profile
Milestone
Conneg 2PWD

Comments

@rob-metalinkage
Copy link
Contributor

reportedly HTTP OPTIONS are not inherently cacheable

is this a showstopper for this - we should discuss it anyway

we should consider whether we should force the one mechanism of link rels,
@rob-metalinkage rob-metalinkage added change-proposal requires discussion Issue to be discussed in a telecon (group or plenary) content-negotiation labels Oct 29, 2018
@rob-metalinkage rob-metalinkage mentioned this issue Oct 29, 2018
Merged
@larsgsvensson
Copy link
Contributor

I'm definitely not pushing OPTIONS as a way of listing profiles, so I'd be happy to remove that. It also means that there is one requirement less that implementers need to care about so it lowers the barrier...

And it should be mentioned that we rely on the blog post NO OPTIONS by Mark Nottingham here.

@azaroth42
Copy link

👍 to removing. OPTIONS is not a common pattern for this sort of thing, and has the potential to conflict with CORS requirements.

@nicholascar nicholascar mentioned this issue Nov 15, 2018
Closed
@larsgsvensson larsgsvensson added this to To do in Content Negotiation by Profile via automation Feb 20, 2019
@rob-metalinkage
Copy link
Contributor Author

ACTION-299 - Remove discussion of http options from doc as per #510 [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2019-02-27]

@rob-metalinkage rob-metalinkage added the due for closing Issue that has been addressed and it is going to be closed if there are no objection within 6 days label Feb 20, 2019
@larsgsvensson larsgsvensson mentioned this issue Feb 21, 2019
Closed
larsgsvensson added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2019
@larsgsvensson
Update index.html
e04b2ea 
Proposed fix for #510
@larsgsvensson larsgsvensson mentioned this issue Feb 28, 2019
Merged
@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor

Addressed by PR #781

Content Negotiation by Profile automation moved this from To do to Done Feb 28, 2019
@rob-metalinkage rob-metalinkage mentioned this issue Mar 10, 2020
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@RubenVerborgh RubenVerborgh

@larsgsvensson larsgsvensson

@nicholascar nicholascar

Labels
change-proposal due for closing Issue that has been addressed and it is going to be closed if there are no objection within 6 days profile-negotiation requires discussion Issue to be discussed in a telecon (group or plenary)
Projects
Content Negotiation by Profile
  
Done
Milestone
Conneg 2PWD
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@RubenVerborgh @azaroth42 @larsgsvensson @nicholascar @rob-metalinkage