On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 10:41:30AM -0400, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > On the issue of trash folders: > > HTTP headers are a poor way of marshalling method specific > information. A header exists in a global namespace, and should be > reserved for things that proxies need to look at. > > So if you want to extend DELETE, I would suggest following the > standard WebDAV approach and add an XML request body to the DELETE > method. Huh? You've got that entirely backwards. HTTP header fields are intended to be method-specific. The only part of an HTTP message that is not supposed to be method-specific is the message payload (entity-headers and entity-body). I thought I made that perfectly clear in the HTTP spec, but it probably got lost in the noise. > In the specific case of trash folders, I would suggest a different > approach. In particular, I would add an OPTIONS parameter that would > let you find out "where is the trash collection for this resource". > Then the client could either issue a DELETE or a MOVE to that trash > collection, depending on what the user wants to do. Either the client knows where the trash is or it doesn't deserve to know where the trash might be -- it is just another collection on the server. Just make it an optional link in the metadata (a live property). ....RoyReceived on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 17:12:53 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:55 GMT