Align DELETE request body semantics with GET per RFC 9110 #42783
Conversation
|
Preview URLs Flaws (3)URL:
(comment last updated: 2026-01-17 04:55:48) |
|
Thank you! Looks good to me, but just to double-check: @fdx-vitor-santos does it solve the issue you filed? #42511 |
| Although a request body is technically allowed, its semantics are undefined for DELETE. | ||
|
|
||
| > [!WARNING] | ||
| > Although request message framing is independent of the method used, content received in a DELETE request has no generally defined semantics, cannot alter the meaning or target of the request, and might lead some implementations to reject the request. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please don't just copy text out of the spec. It looks like the report (#42511) expects the page for DELETE to use the same wording as the page for GET, and that seems like a reasonable approach.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the feedback!
I’ve updated the DELETE page to use the same NOTE wording and links as the GET page, rather than copying text directly from the spec.
Please let me know if this now addresses the concern.
|
Oops, sorry @pepelsbey , I missed your review. |
bd2fa2c to
835bb2f
Compare
Use the same warning wording as the GET method to clarify that DELETE request bodies have no defined semantics and cannot affect the request target, resolving the inconsistency reported in mdn#42511.
835bb2f to
fd22d2b
Compare
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Many thanks for taking a look at this! @pepelsbey yes, this PR solves the issue I had raised. |
pepelsbey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perfect! Thank you everyone ❤️
Co-authored-by: wbamberg <will@bootbonnet.ca>
wbamberg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 thank you @MUSKANNISHAD !
Fixes #42511
Aligns DELETE request body documentation with GET semantics per RFC 9110.
Adds a warning callout and corrects the "Request has body" table entry.