René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Update OPTIONS, Allow, Accept-*","articleBody":"re:\r\n```\r\ncurl -iX OPTIONS https://csarven.solid.community/\r\n\r\nVary: Accept, Authorization, Origin\r\nAccess-Control-Allow-Methods: OPTIONS,HEAD,GET,PATCH,POST,PUT,DELETE\r\nAllow: GET,HEAD\r\nAccept-Patch: application/sparql-update\r\n````\r\n\r\n* `Allow` should include what's really \"allowed\" eg. `OPTIONS` is a good start.\r\n* If `Accept-Patch` is of any indication, add `PATCH` to `Allow`.\r\n* If `PUT, POST` are also allowed add to `Allow`, and would be good to include `Accept-Put` and `Accept-Post` respectively (note: `Accept-Put` is not really spec'd/standardised but just completeness sake)\r\n\r\nJust to be clear, that's for a public resource. I understand that `GET`, `HEAD`, and `OPTIONS` may be the only methods allowed, then `Accept-Patch` probably shouldn't be advertised. No major harm but still. Note different treatment to https://csarven.solid.community/public/ , which appears to be correct (authenticated).\r\n\r\nAside: There may have been a special case for the storage root (I recall some people having issues with overwriting their homepage or whatever), so perhaps that's why `PATCH` is not listed there now (even if authenticated if I'm not mistaken). I don't see why `PATCH` would be allowed but not `PUT` or `POST`, and others on storage root, but ok.","author":{"url":"https://github.com/csarven","@type":"Person","name":"csarven"},"datePublished":"2018-11-13T17:31:49.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":21},"url":"https://github.com/931/node-solid-server/issues/931"}