W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: options (* contains proposed editorial change to DeltaV *)

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 10:48:47 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10475DECA@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de]

   Suppose I invent the Value-Added-Dummy Protocol and have a super feature
   that allows clients to send VAD:options XML request bodies in OPTIONS
   methods. Would every deltaV-compliant server choke on such client
   requests or just ignore the VAD:options request bodies?

Good point.  It doesn't make sense to require that the request body
of an existing method (e.g. OPTIONS) be something not defined in the
definition of that method (since this would just lead to the kind
of conflict that Stefan identified).

I propose that we reword the OPTIONS extensions to say:
"If the request body is DAV:options, then the response body MUST
be DAV:options-respose."  This then allows these kinds of parallel
extensions to the OPTIONS method to coexist.

This is of course very late in the cycle, but since this changes
none of the semantics of the DeltaV protocol, but does allow for
better interoperation between parallel extensions to the OPTIONS
method, I would like to make this change if nobody objects.

Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 10:49:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC