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

RE: redirect ref spec, update on issue lc-85-301

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:47:09 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCIEHHINAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Lisa,

I don't think it's up to me to answer that. The purpose of the Redirect Ref
spec is

1) to define how existing redirects behave inside WebDAV collections and

2) how to author redirects.

The HTTP spec has decided to distinguish between these types, and therefore
it makes sense to reflect that distinction in the redirect ref spec as well.
I imagine that browsers should remember "how they got" to the URL when the
user decides to bookmark the URL.

This feature was requested during the Last Call in spring 2000, and it seems
that there was WG consensus to add that (at least this is what the issues
list says). As storing a type seems to be trivial when the target URL needs
to be stored anyway, and as Apache indeed distinguishes between those types,
I feel it makes sense to have it authorable as well.

Julian


--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: redirect ref spec, update on issue lc-85-301
>
>
>
> This is indisputable, but that doesn't answer my questions.
>  - How do browsers in fact behave differently?
>  - What is the use case for creating different redirect resource types?
>
> Lisa
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:01 PM
> > To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: redirect ref spec, update on issue lc-85-301
> >
> >
> > Lisa,
> >
> > HTTP is very clear about what it means:
> >
> > - Temporary: follow the link, but keep accessing *this* URL
> > - Permanent: follow the link, and forget about the original location
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > --
> > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 8:45 AM
> > > To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: redirect ref spec, update on issue lc-85-301
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For now I propose that the client is able to specify the
> > > > redirection type as a resource type, such as
> > > > "DAV:permanent-redirect-reference" and
> > > > "DAV:temporary-redirect-reference". This spec would only
> > > > define the behaviour for these two resource types and would
> > > > allow future extensions using new resource types and
> > > > suggested response codes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What's the use case for this functionality.  How would a
> > user creating
> > > a link decide whether this was a permanent or a temporary redirect
> > > link?  Is anybody actually planning to implement a client
> > that would
> > > care which one it was creating?
> > >
> > > If there aren't implementation plans, use case, etc, then the KISS
> > > principle suggests that we pick one. Since redirect
> > resources are in
> > > fact permanent until deleted (the temporariness is completely
> > > unknown), I see no reason why they wouldn't all be the same kind of
> > > redirect resource.
> > >
> > > Before we chose one HTTP response or another, it would be good
> > > to know whether HTTP clients behave differently. I have no data
> > > on this.
> > >
> > > lisa
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 15:47:25 GMT

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