- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:52:04 -0500
- To: JSlein@crt.xerox.com
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com> <...> I agree with everything Judy said up to here, but cut it out for brevity. I don't quite get Geoff's comment that "The client needs to be warned that there really will *not* be a copy made," since I thought the position we were both supporting is that there *will* really be a copy made, both for direct references and for redirect references. (This was a comment on invoking a COPY on a redirect reference.) For a redirect reference COPY, you could either return the 302 and not do anything (letting the client decide whether to do a "no-passthrough copy" or copy the target explicitly), or you could return the 302 *and* actually do a "no-passthrough copy. I slightly prefer the former (since normally a "302" means that the operation did not happen, right?), but either one is fine with me. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Friday, 26 February 1999 12:52:09 UTC