- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:03:56 +0100
- To: "'W3C WebDAV Mailing List'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
"Hall, Shaun" <Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com> wrote: > 1) Obviously it would go against the definition in > RFC 2616 for 201 Created. > 2) You haven't actually created a resource. An LNR doesn't > physically exist, you've only reserved the "name". You have > created a lock, but that is not the same thing. Arrgh, where did this idea that a resource must "physically exist" come from?? In what sense does http://foo.com/cgi-bin/quote?myportfolio,yesterday (or whatever) 'physically exist'? A 201 Created response looks like the ideal response for the creation of a lock-null resource. I did not read anything in RFC2616 to contradict that. > 3) Doesn't make sense to me to get a "201 Created" response > for a successful LNR, then if you tried to DELETE or GET it > for example, get a 404 or 405 (as per RFC 2518 sec 7.4). > 4) Might break existing applications etc. > > Alternatively, a client could perform one of a number of > actions to discover that the resource didn't exist before > they attempt to LOCK it (create the LNR) and get a 404. Lock-null resources are generally bad and should have been strangled at birth. > Side notes - results when creating an LNR with: > > 5) mod_dav pre v1.0 (think v0.9.16) returns a 200 OK response. > 6) IIS 5.0 (on Win2K) returns a 201 Created response. Tim
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 07:19:37 UTC