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

RE: 3xx vs RFC2518 vs redirect-ref spec

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:23:12 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF83FE0B4.55A2F222-ON85256DBF.005F4C96-85256DBF.005F8212@us.ibm.com>
I support this addition to RFC2518bis.

I believe it is a key mechanism needed for servers to properly support
the various current (and future) WebDAV extensions.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 10/14/2003 09:53:30 AM:

> 
> > OK,
> >
> > so we probably should put it onto the issues list (so that it doesn't 
get
> lost).
> 
> Here's a proposal for the issues list:
> 
> 
> Issue DAV_REQUEST_HEADER
> 
> RFC 2518 provides a mechanism (the "DAV" response header) for a server 
to
> indicate to a client that it supports a specific WebDAV option (e.g. 
"1",
> "2", "version-control", etc.), but there is no complementary mechanism 
for a
> client to indicate to a server that it understands a specific WebDAV 
option.
> This becomes an issue when a WebDAV extension (or revision) needs to 
change
> response formats in a way that possibly break existing clients. 
Detecting
> client features based on a single, well-defined request header will work
> better than (for instance) relying on custom headers (specified by each
> extension) or "User-Agent".
> 
> Suggested resolution: allow the use of the "DAV" header as a request 
header,
> with the same set of values that are defined for the "DAV"
> response header.
> 
> 
> Regards, Julian
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2003 13:23:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT