- From: Eric Sedlar <Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:46:54 -0700
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
<dynamic> would be useful as a return value for any resource that has contents generated dynamically, like a servlet. This would be a REALLY great addition, IMHO. --Eric > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 12:24 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Getcontentlength & GetContentType > > > > What should I respond if a client asks for the properties > > Getcontentlength or GetContentType on a collection? > > For DAV:getcontentlength, RFC 2518 states, in section 13.4, that > it contains > "the Content-Length header returned by a GET without accept headers." > > > But it doesn't say, if the value a supposed to be the same as if > > I perform a 'Get' on that url. > > I'm finding it difficult to see how you came to this interpretation. > > > The collection itself doesn't > > normally have a content, so does this mean that if the collection > > have a default page. That it should return the values of that > > page? > > Yes, that was the intent for collections. > > If you can retrieve the contents of resource R via a GET on URLs > collection/ > and collection/index.html, then this implied to me that resource R had two > URL mappings. In particular, it meant that a GET on collection/ was > non-zero, and should result in a value for DAV:getcontentlength and > DAV:getcontenttype. > > > Or if the server is set to send a generated HTML page > > listing the children, should the values be text/html and the size > > of that page? > > That was also the intent. Now, given the performance implications > of this, I > can easily see why a server might not want to compute a value here. Seems > like it would be handy to have a value a server could use to indicate that > the content length is variable, and dynamic, like <d:dynamic/> and thus > allow a server to avoid computing the contents of dynamic resources. > > > Or have I missed something in the spec? > > Doesn't look like it. > > - Jim > >
Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 15:41:30 UTC