- From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:15:42 -0400
- To: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
(I'm replying to this rather late, so I'll do some excessive quoting so people can get the context.) Jim Whitehead wrote: > > 2) Section 9.6 "...If the Overwrite Header is not included in a COPY/MOVE > > request then the resource MUST treat the request as if it had an overwrite > > header of value 'T'". This seems backwards to me (in fact I had it coded > > the otherway until yesterday), since the overwrite will do a DELETE, is it > > not safer to assume a header of "F"??? > > Well, I'll note that you brought this up previously: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999AprJun/0053.html > > And it has been noted on the issues list (issue: > OVERWRITE_DELETE_TOO_STRONG): > http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/protocol/issues.html > > I'm certainly willing to see this change as we move from Proposed to Draft > Standard. For now, I'd expect user agents to protect users from > unexpectedly large effects. The problem with changing it as the standard moves forward is that we run the risk that existing clients will probably omit the Overwrite header when they mean T, and people's COPY/MOVEs will start failing when the servers switch standards. I'd suggest it'd be best to leave this alone. -- /=============================================================\ |John Stracke | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK | |francis@ecal.com|============================================| |Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed | |eCal Corp. | by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch | \=============================================================/
Received on Wednesday, 11 August 1999 14:15:53 UTC