- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:04:02 +0200
- To: Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Am Dienstag den, 18. Juni 2002, um 18:06, schrieb Dan Brotsky: > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 04:49 AM, Clemm, Geoff wrote: >> I agree with Julian (i.e. that trailing slashes are allowed by >> the syntax), but I also have argued vigorously that the RFC-2518 >> "guidance" is incorrect, and the next revision of RFC-2518 should >> simply state "a URI with a trailing slash SHOULD identify the >> same resource as the URI with the trailing slash removed". > > But do you also want this to be the case for non-collection > resources? Perhaps you mean "if a URI that ends in a trailing > slash identifies a DAV-compliant collection resource, then the > same URI with the trailing slash removed SHOULD identify the same > resource." I would actually go for MUST in that case, although > such a change would break some existing servers. > > dan I think the current approach in RFC 2518 works just fine, e.g. to indicate in the Content-Location that this entity is really located somewhere else. It worked until Apache 2.0 and I do not see any benefit in the new 301 for PROPFIND behaviour. Lack of deep insight on my part most likely. But even if /a and /a/ is the same from WebDAV point of view, there are a lot of common use cases where GET on /a/b will return 301/302 to /a/b/ no matter what WebDAV has to say about it. The good old index.html trick... //Stefan
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 13:04:07 UTC