> I think the argument was to remove just the unused verbs.
What unused verbs?
You know the outcry that got Google to restore CalDAV access to Google Calendar data?
CalDAV adds its own method on top of the whole stack added in WebDAV, as well as borrowing one from the Versioning Extensions to WebDAV (I don't think it actually relies on the whole Versioning Extensions.)
All the HTTP/1.1 verbs (well, except maybe TRACE) -- plus PATCH, plus those in WebDAV, plus many of the extensions to WebDAV (including CalDAV), are all actively used in the wild, on major systems.
I'm no fan of the WebDAV ones, but since its an extension on top of HTTP/1.1, I don't see how HTTP/2.0 could kill them except by forbidding extensions. Which, given the success of Google's attempt to drop CalDAV, I don't see being particularly successful if HTTP/2.0 wants to get widespread adoption (if it doesn't support HTTP/1.1 verbs including extensions, then existing HTTP/1.1 -- and WebDAV extended -- services aren't going to be easy to move over.)
What unused verbs?
You know the outcry that got Google to restore CalDAV access to Google Calendar data?
CalDAV adds its own method on top of the whole stack added in WebDAV, as well as borrowing one from the Versioning Extensions to WebDAV (I don't think it actually relies on the whole Versioning Extensions.)
All the HTTP/1.1 verbs (well, except maybe TRACE) -- plus PATCH, plus those in WebDAV, plus many of the extensions to WebDAV (including CalDAV), are all actively used in the wild, on major systems.
I'm no fan of the WebDAV ones, but since its an extension on top of HTTP/1.1, I don't see how HTTP/2.0 could kill them except by forbidding extensions. Which, given the success of Google's attempt to drop CalDAV, I don't see being particularly successful if HTTP/2.0 wants to get widespread adoption (if it doesn't support HTTP/1.1 verbs including extensions, then existing HTTP/1.1 -- and WebDAV extended -- services aren't going to be easy to move over.)