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

Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:19:51 -0800
Message-Id: <d361d4217b27fa582ea7d84875fc626c@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Oct 31, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>>
>>>> The original question that brought up this issue was how to 
>>>> interpret the URLs inside the body of the Multi-Status if there was 
>>>> a Location
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there any record on the mailing list of this issue? Has anybody 
>>> ever *seen* a 207 with a Location header? That is, why was this 
>>> question asked in the first place?
>> Yes.  At an Interop event.
>
> Is there any record on the mailing list of this issue?
Sept 15, 2002, mail from me entitled "Issues from Interop/Interim WG 
Meeting".


"- Clients get confused if host names change; Clients expect
full/relative URLs? Dealt with in text on multistatus response"

The Location header was what the server was using to indicate the host 
name redirection in this case, which I didn't mention in this brief 
summary unfortunately.

The full details of the Interop -- e.g which client this was, and which 
server -- were never published, a decision we made in order to get 
broader participation in the Interop.

Lisa
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 00:20:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT