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

Re: OPTIONS * (Was: RE: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-00)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:19:29 +0100
Message-ID: <3FC275E1.7090204@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: 'Webdav WG' <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>, fielding@apache.org, masinter@adobe.com

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> Well, obviously I've been reluctant to encourage implementors
> to diverge from HTTP, given my assumptions that OPTIONS * is
> required in HTTP/1.1.  But if that's the general consensus, 
> we need to know.  
> Everybody, please consider, reply, and discuss: 
> 1. Does HTTP/1.1 require support for OPTIONS *?  Would a HTTP
> server that considered OPTIONS * to be a "bad request" be a 
> compliant HTTP/1.1 server?

1b) Would a server that does not list PROPFIND in the Allow: header for 
OPTIONS * although it does support WebDAV resources in some parts of 
it's namespace compliant?

> 2. If the answer to 1 is YES, then should WebDAV servers get 
> special dispensation to leave OPTIONS * unimplemented? 

I guess this depends of what support for "OPTIONS *" actually means, and 
this is something the HTTP mailing list can hopefully clarify.

> 3. If the answer to 2 is NO, then should WebDAV servers be 
> exempt from showing WebDAV support in OPTIONS *?  
> Bonus question: Can you report on any client or server HTTP or
> WebDAV implementations that do, or do not, support or use 


- Apache/mod_dav doesn't list PROPFIND in the Allow header
- Nor does Apache/Tomcat (with the default webdav servlet installation)
- Nor does SAP Enterprise Portal Server


- none of the clients I'm aware of relies on "OPTIONS *" returning 
anything WebDAV-specific (this includes Microsoft clients, various Adobe 
clients, MacOsX, our own and others).

> It may be premature to ask these questions, if the questions are
> poorly formed, but at least by asking the questions we may get
> feedback about how to properly ask the questions.
> Implementation report: Xythos WebFile Server *does* support OPTIONS *
> (and it is java servlet based, surprise surprise).  Xythos WebFile
> Client does not use OPTIONS *, but it does use "OPTIONS /".

Re: "OPTIONS /"? What does it use it for? Seems to be nothing essential, 
otherwise it wouldn't work with our server (which it does).


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 24 November 2003 16:19:48 UTC

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