3 ms·
either extension method seems a lost cause, given that most browsers/web servers don't fully support the 7 existing http verbs, even with decades to do so.
by clairity 5y ago
either extension method seems a lost cause, given that most browsers/web servers don't fully support the 7 existing http verbs, even with decades to do so.
- capableweb 5y ago> don't fully support the 7 existing http verbs 9 to be precise (RFC 7231 defines GET, HEAD, POST, PUT, DELETE, CONNECT, OPTIONS, TRACE, RFC 5789 defines PATCH). Some of those are not commonly used because of various security vulnerabilities that have been discovered over the years (see https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/867593 https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/867593, https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/288308 https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/288308, https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/150227 https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/150227) for some examples. Some tooling goes as far as defining some of those methods as "forbidden", like what the standard for JavaScript Fetch does.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> > the 7 existing http verbs > 9 to be precise You are off by 30: https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods/http-methods.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods/http-methods.x...
- elcapitan 5y agoA lot of these seem to be specific to e.g. WebDAV though, hardly general purpose HTTP methods. God knows why they had to muddle this up like that.
- clairity 5y agoyah, i should have specified 'common' or 'web', or something like that. i had a feeling someone would raise a more technically precise but also more esoteric rebuttal.
- capableweb 5y agoOh, I did not know about that! You learn something new every day at HN :) Thanks! Granted, I guess you could argue that because you can use whatever method you want in practice, there is a unlimited set of methods available (depending on how long string whatever server you're using could create, if they are parsing it and so on)