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

[Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302

From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:22:31 -0800
Message-Id: <200512121922.jBCJMVD4022054@ietf.cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112





------- Additional Comments From ejw@cs.ucsc.edu  2005-12-12 11:22 -------
The rationale for explicitly stating that 3xx redirects apply is as follows.

Most use of HTTP is for reading resources. For reads, it's pretty clear what a redirect means -- go 
someplace else and read what's there.

If you have been strongly conditioned to view redirects as just applying to reads, then having redirects 
apply to writes seems a bit strange. Most people have *never* worked with a system that can possibly 
store your data under a different location than the one you initially specified. For example, file systems 
do not work this way. As a result, even though it is a straightforward extension of the semantics of the 
3xx responses, it still runs counter to the predominant set of experiences that most programmers have. 
It also seems potentially dangerous -- what if my work is written someplace I don't want it to go?

Since this behavior is non-typical (as compared to the "typical" filesystem behavior), it makes sense for 
all write operations to explicitly state that they can be redirected via 3xx. The reason we don't 
exhaustively list that all HTTP responses potentially apply to all WebDAV methods is because most 
HTTP response codes don't involve semantics that run counter to the typical experience of developers. 
That is, 3xx is exceptional, exactly because the semantics are atypical.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 19:23:01 GMT

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