W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Thoughts on relation to WebDAV

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:34:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4836F223.9090608@gmx.de>
To: Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Werner Baumann wrote:
>> It wasn't intentional. As far as I recall, we lost the first paragraph 
>> without considering compliance.
> 
> If it was not intentional, it should go in the Errata document to avoid 
> confusion.

Well, go on and report the erratum.

>> In practice I think it doesn't make any difference at all.
>>
>> If a server vendor can't implement support for creating collections, 
>> he/she simply won't. A 403 always was possible, RFC4918 now also 
>> allows 405.
>>
>> What difference does this make in practice?
> 
> 405 was allowed in RFC 2518 too. HTTP/1.1 also knows 501 Not Implemented.
> 
> RFC 2616:
> 
>   10.5.2 501 Not Implemented
>   The server does not support the functionality required to fulfill
>   the request. This is the appropriate response when the server does
>   not recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting
>   it for any resource.
> 
> RFC 2518/4918:
> 
>   403 (Forbidden) - This indicates at least one of two
>   conditions: 1) the server does not allow the creation of collections
>   at the given location in its namespace, or 2) the parent collection
>   of the Request-URI exists but cannot accept members.
> 
>   405 (Method Not Allowed) - MKCOL can only be executed on a
>   deleted/non-existent resource.
> 
> No difference in practice? Are clients supposed not to care about these 
> different status codes?

Again, what difference does it make *in practice*???

> A server, that does not implement MKCOL, is not compliant according RFC 
> 2616, but is compliant according RFC 4918. No difference in practice?

Yes, exactly.

> I have to concede: I never saw a compliant WebDAV-server. So does it 
> make a difference in practice, whether there is a standard at all?

Not sure what you're trying to say.

There are many ways how a server can refuse to do MKCOL. It can always 
claim "forbidden", it can say "not implemented" etc.

In practice it means the client won't be able to create collections.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 16:37:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:16 GMT