RE: Getcontentlength & GetContentType

<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