W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Issue 147 - Depth vs Conditional headers

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 16:04:40 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAC2DB314.41FB7E0A-ON852570EF.00737DBD-852570EF.0073C986@us.ibm.com>
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that we not say anything about
"If", but rather that we don't say anything about "If" in that
sentence, and instead talk about it's interaction with Depth in
the section in which the "If" header is defined.  That way, the
fact that "If" is an exception is covered by the clause that says
"except where alternative behavior is explicity defined".

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 01/07/2006 02:58:48 PM:

> 
> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> > 
> > I don't see an alternative.  The only thing I'd suggest is to
> > slightly simplify the qualifier by not referring to the If header
> > (since we can state in the definition of If header that it
> > doesn't recurse via Depth), i.e.:
> > 
> > "Any headers on a method that has a defined interaction with the Depth
> > header MUST be applied to all resources in the scope of the method
> > except where alternative behavior is explicitly defined, and except 
for
> > the If-* headers defined in RFC2616."
> 
> The reason I mentioned "If" as well is because people may still assume 
> that a If header in tagged list form is going to be applied to all 
> resources in scope, thus I preferred to be safe. If I'm the only one 
> seeing that as a potential for confusion we can of course remove that 
> statement.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
Received on Saturday, 7 January 2006 21:04:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT