- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 08:02:47 -0700
- To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABP7Rbdho_T3bgLGJ4TsA0cEuNwPLcQCENNxuq8mTZtLAAHPyw@mail.gmail.com>
A much older version of the specification included an optional Preference-Applied response header that could explicitly indicate whether a particular preference was applied, but after lots of feedback that "I wasn't going to need it", I pulled it back out (largely against my better judgement). I'm thinking that perhaps it needs to be added back in. - James On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on draft draft-murchison-webdav-prefer which describes how the > return-minimal and return-representation apply to WebDAV/CalDAV methods. > My work is primarily CalDAV-centric but we are trying to make it generic > to WebDAV and its derivatives. > > One of the issues that keeps coming up is a way for the client to > differentiate between two cases: > > - the server doesn't return a representation because it ignored or doesn't > support the return-representation preference > > - the server understood the preference but didn't return a representation > because it didn't change from what was in the request > > One possible solution is for the server to return a Vary: Prefer header to > indicate that the server understood the preference, thereby allowing the > client to infer what the lack of a representation in the response means. > > The next question is, does any such mandate or recommendation, if > required, belong in my webdav-prefer draft or in the base Prefer spec? > > Thoughts? > > -- > Kenneth Murchison > Principal Systems Software Engineer > Carnegie Mellon University > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 15:03:43 UTC