- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 01:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- cc: ejw@ics.uci.edu, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > >b) If this scenario is a problem for DAV, it seems to me it's also a problem > >for downlevel HTTP/1.1 clients too, since what you're alluding to is a > >general problem having to do with the implications a restriction on one end > >of a containment relationship has on the other end. > > No, as HTTP/1.1 doesn't have the requirement that "all ancestors MUST > already exist" then it can create the resource > "http://example.com/foo/fuzz/bar.html" just fine without caring about > whether /foo and /foo/fuzz exist or not. But HTTP/1.1 also does not require that servers create those intermediate collections. Your point is bogus... you're simply relying on some precedent rather than the specification. As a server author myself, I have stated that my response to PUT will return an error if you PUT to a collection that doesn't exist. Forget DAV -- that is my statement for PUT itself. I don't believe you have a basis to tell me that my response is incorrect. Ergo, why is this issue w.r.t. PUT being argued? Server authors are free to return an error in this scenario. (DAV simply states they must.) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 1999 04:10:39 UTC