W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:42:35 +0200
Message-ID: <435A881B.1030008@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> On Oct 22, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>>
>> Lisa, it seems that whatever we discuss, you try to turn this into a 
>> discussion about even more spec text. RFC2518bis doesn't need to say 
>> anything about it. Whatever RFC2616 already says and a future WebDAV 
>> REDIRECT spec will say is sufficient.
> 
> 
> You say that as though it's a bad thing!  Whenever we discuss or 

Yes, as a matter of fact I think it's a bad thing. We are revising 
RFC2518, which to me means

- fixing bugs (examples, typos)
- removing stuff nobody does implement (such as DAV:propertybehaviour)
- simplify things that were too complex in the first place (lock-null 
resources come to mind)
- removing stuff that's not need today anymore (XML namespace 
explanations, UUID generation instructions...)
- update references
- add stuff that we agree was missing (DAV:lockroot...)

This may not be complete, but it should cover most cases.

Just adding prose without no actual need for it IMHO is a bad idea. Do 
that in FAQs, Blogs, online resources, implementor guides, books, whatever.

> disagree on the mailing list, I find that's a good case for narrowing 
> down what can be done in implementations of RFC2518bis; to reduce 
> variety between implementations, improve interoperability and have a 
> complete spec that doesn't send people running to the mailing list all 
> too often.

"Narrowing down" means a change of the spec. As far as I can tell, there 
is no need to change the spec. If you feel there is a need, please 
explain way (interop problem???).

> We can at least think and talk about the issue -- if we *do* come to 
> consensus that Location header is not appropriate in 207 responses (or 
> other new response codes defined by WebDAV, or new methods defined by 
> WebDAV) then any of that would be good information to add to the spec.

I disagree. RFC2616 defines what the "Location" header is for, and any 
attempt to go further than that without practical reasons IMHO would be 
the wrong thing to do.

> OTOH if we come to consensus that we shouldn't restrict Location header 
> use but leave it undefined on most response types, I hope there's a good 
> reason for that which would come out in a discussion.

We can (and will) discuss whatever is raised here. I just dont't see how 
this discussion helps us in any way revising RFC2518. As a matter of 
fact, it slows us down, because it distracts us from the things that 
*are* on the issues list.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2005 18:42:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:10 GMT