W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2002


From: Daniel Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:57:51 -0800
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Message-Id: <09AE2686-21AF-11D6-88EB-0003931036B4@adobe.com>
On Aug 17 last year, in 
auth/2001JulSep/0141.html>, Jason closed this issue using the Geoff's 
language about "act as if a PUT of length 0 happened."

Since I was on vacation at that time, I missed this conclusion, but 
don't worry: I agree with it!!  (phew :^)  But it raises a question 
(other than the 201 status response Lisa already raised) and I believe 
it closes another issue I rasied:

The question: what's the mime-type of the newly-created resource?

Now I know that many servers use file extensions to determine mime-type, 
so the name of the resource could be used to provide a mime-type.  But 
for other servers that expect clients to supply a Content-type header on 
PUT (or at least pay attention to them), what should happen?

My proposal: do not mandate behavior around this; leave the spec 
silent.  That way the spec is silent about mime-type of LOCK created 
resources exactly as it's silent about the mime type of PUT resources.


In <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-
auth/2001JanMar/0134.html> I asked that LOCK return 409 with no body 
when parent collections don't exist.  There was no discussion (which at 
the time I took to be assent but the issue was never closed), but with 
this change in LOCK semantics I believe the issue is forced: LOCK must 
return 409 (with no body) exactly as PUT does when there are missing 
parent collections.  So I think this issue should be closed as accepted, 
unless anyone has a problem with the language I specified in my original 

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 19:57:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:25 UTC