W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1

From: Tim Ellison <tim@ellison.name>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:50:11 +0100
To: "'Deltav WG'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Stefan Eissing wrote:

> The result of a GET has to be cacheable by HTTP proxies.

I see nothing to prevent the response from a GET including a 'Cache-Control:
no-cache' header.  Why do you say that?

> For the LABEL header to be compliant with GET, it has to
> select a variant (as variant in rfc2616) of the resource

I disagree that it has to select a variant (or at least I haven't been shown
why yet).

>  and declare so in the Vary header.

The Vary: header doesn't state the result is a variant, or otherwise.

> I think there is no way around it without breaking GET and I hear
> that Roy Fielding has got a big knife and is after the SOAP guys for
> related matters...

How does it break GET?  (This discussion is drifting all over the map!)

> I think LABEL has to be rethought.

Clearly it has to be clarified.  We had a number of working group review
periods, and all the authors signed it off in it's current form; so I hope
it isn't too far away from sanity.

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 11:50:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:48 UTC