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

RE: 3xx vs RFC2518 vs redirect-ref spec

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:54:58 +0200
To: "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEDFIMAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 6:46 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 3xx vs RFC2518 vs redirect-ref spec
> For (1), I could go either way on this, but if we did give a client
> a way to say this, I suggest that it be in the form of a request DAV
> header, and that we introduce a symbol that means "the redirect-ref
> standard", e.g. something like:
>   DAV: 1, 2, redirect

Well, I'd rather not do that unless it's in the base spec (RFC2518bis). The
redirect draft already defines a new header, so that one can easily be

> Note that I am bundling this into the general "I understand the
> redirect spec" token, since I'd rather not introduce a new token for
> each detailed bit of functionality.
> For (2), Julian's suggestion is fine, but shouldn't the Location
> node be optional (i.e. "Location?").

Of course :-)

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 12:58:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:28 UTC