W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2001

OPTIONS

From: Kevin Wiggen <wiggs@xythos.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:36:10 -0800
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ONEOJMKKAIDAGPLOPJEDAEEACMAA.wiggs@xythos.com>

Another from the line of "null resource" vrs "lock null resource" vrs a
"resource".

While implementing OPTIONS and PUT (with LOCKS) a few things need to be
specified in 2518.

The problem is handling requests to resources that don't exist.  The
following are some use-cases:

1)  /foo is a directory with no contents.
    OPTIONS to /foo returns a 200 with the appropriate headers
    OPTIONS to /foo/bar returns??  200 or 404??
    OPTIONS to /foo/bar/fee returns a 404

2)  /foo is a directory with no contents and is locked depth infinity
    PUT to /foo/bar, does this require a tagged list for the lock token
specifying /foo or will un untagged list work as well.

Yes I have raised number 2 before.  I think the key here is whether or not a
"null resource" is considered an entity on the server or not.  Since OPTIONS
in 2068 states "the OPTIONS request applies only to the options that are
available when communicating with that resource."  Thus to get a 200
response a resource must exist!!!

Is the intent of 2518 to create "lock null resources" AND "null resources"
where the "null resource" is defined as a resource that does not exist but
the parent does????  Thus OPTIONS and LOCKS work differently than if a "null
resource" is not a real resource and thus simply returns 404 to Webdav
requests.

Thoughts??

Kevin
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2001 17:36:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:55 GMT