At 01:40 PM 6/27/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 01:16 PM 6/27/2005, JimJag wrote:
Shouldn't set_allow_header be static?
My bad, make_header was static, and set_allow_header in my
tree is static as well.
If there are no objections, I would move ahead and commit.
The only thing holding up
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 01:40 PM 6/27/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 01:16 PM 6/27/2005, JimJag wrote:
Shouldn't set_allow_header be static?
My bad, make_header was static, and set_allow_header in my
tree is static as well.
If there are no objections, I would move ahead
Shouldn't set_allow_header be static?
At 01:16 PM 6/27/2005, JimJag wrote:
Shouldn't set_allow_header be static?
ewww. so should have make_allow ...
Wasn't defined in any header, so I don't suppose it's really
breaking ABI to get it right :)
Bill
The attached patch resolved the issue I noted below,
10.4.6 405 Method Not Allowed
requires an Allow header (I would presume, even if empty),
while
10.5.2 501 Not Implemented states
This is the appropriate response when the server does not
recognize the request method and is not
[Again, this time w/ the attachement]
The attached patch resolved the issue I noted below,
10.4.6 405 Method Not Allowed requires an Allow header
(I would presume, even if empty, based on #() grammar),
while 10.5.2 501 Not Implemented states;
This is the appropriate response when the server
