W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Issues: MKCOL_AND_302

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:36:32 -0400
To: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OF124C90D9.22B76A49-ON85256D52.003F716D-85256D52.003FC54E@us.ibm.com>
Why do you think the answer is "a"?  If the URL to which the
302 is redirecting the client is not mapped to a resource,
a MKCOL to that URL can succeed (privileges permitting), so
I would conclude that "b" is the correct answer (and therefore,
MKCOL acts like any other method wrt 302 handling).

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 06/27/2003 03:53:01 AM:

> 
> Jim,
> 
> > It seems to me that it's possible to configure a WebDAV server 
> > such that it doesn't support redirect reference resources, but 
> > does give out 302s for some URLs. 
> 
> I think that's just a matter of what you mean by "support redirect 
> reference resources". If it can return 302s, it knows about 
> redirects. It may not support to *author* them, but that's a separate 
issue.
> 
> > I'm fine with saying MKCOL, like all methods, is redirected by 302.
> 
> So what does this mean? If a client does a MKCOL on a URI and 
> receive a 302 with Location header, what is it supposed to do?
> 
> a) consider this a failure, just as a 405 (resource exists)
> b) redirect the MKCOL to the URI specified in the Location header?
> 
> IMHO, the answer must be a), thus the request is not really 
> redirected -- it just fails, because the resource identified by the 
> request URI already exists, and MKCOL is defined only to suceed on 
> null resources.
> 
> Julian
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 07:36:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT