LINK was added after HTTP/1.0, and removed before HTTP/1.1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registr... is being cited, but that is still a draft and the registry that refers to does not yet exist. I believe it is thus fair to say that LINK is not a standard method?
To be certain, whether or not LINK is supported is not really the issue. The file is mishandling HTTP methods in general for the sake of "optimization". Had the parser been written correctly in the first place, it ought to have been trivial for someone to add support for new extension methods like LINK, but since the parser is broken, it becomes significantly more difficult.
Oh, to be certain. The HTTP spec does have extension methods; any token is valid as a method name. (Implementing the spec in Rust has taught me a lot about HTTP.) I guess I should avoid the quibble of the particular example and focus on the bigger picture :-)
