W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Issue: relative URI references in <scope>

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:22:18 +0100
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'dasl'" <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEEBECAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Lisa,

I think this is a misunderstanding. I'm not changing the spec, I am trying
to clarify and to make it consistent with WebDAV.

> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:20 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'dasl'
> Subject: RE: Issue: relative URI references in <scope>
>
>
> What is the purpose of this change?  WebDAV uses full URI references
> elsewhere:  the href returned in PROPFIND response, if header
> tagged lists,
> Destination header.

Actually, WebDAV uses URI references, but does not really allow relative URI
references (see other discussion on the WebDAV mailing list). All I want is
to make SEARCH consistent with this.

> Note also that HTTP is planning on transitioning to full URIs even in
> Request-URI (full URIs can already be found most other places,
> e.g. Location
> header).  From 2616:
>    "To allow for transition to absoluteURIs in all requests in future
>    versions of HTTP, all HTTP/1.1 servers MUST accept the absoluteURI
>    form in requests, even though HTTP/1.1 clients will only generate
>    them in requests to proxies."
>
> The more rigorous approach would seem to be more consistent and
> safer, here.

I'm not against chaning the approach, but SEARCH should play with the same
rules as WebDAV.

Note that full URIs have the disadvantage of

- being more chatty,

- being very hard to generate in some cases (see [1]).

Julian

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JanMar/0240.html>
Received on Sunday, 3 March 2002 12:22:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:08 GMT