- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 00:24:17 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <ldusseault@xythos.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
- Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEBHFAAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Lisa, I think we should just re-state that the DAV: get* properties reflect the values of the HTTP entity headers. They may be present or not. If they are present, they MUST conform to the definitions in RFC2616, in particular, they MUST NOT be blank. It doesn't make sense to require PROPFIND to return something different from GET/HEAD. If the server doesn't know the content language, that's it. Nobody is served by somebody trying to come up with a "default". Guess what: the Microsoft Webfolder client PUTs all files with a content language header of "en_US" - even on a german Windows installation. That's a bug, not a feature. Julian -----Original Message----- From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:ldusseault@xythos.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:05 AM To: Julian Reschke; Jason Crawford; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of unmapped URL What are other people's views on this? Should live properties for which the server doesn't have an easy value be left blank or should the property not exist? My reasoning was that live properties like "getcontentlanguage" should be required, thus should exist on every WebDAV resource, even if the value must be blank. Otherwise a server can completely omit these properties and still claim compliance. (Side note: If required live properties like "getcontentlanguage" can be missing on a WebDAV resource, then we need to clarify under what conditions they may be missing. I'm thinking along these lines: "If the latest client PUT request contains a Content-Language header, the value of this header MUST be preserved in the getcontentlanguage property value. If the Content-Language header is never provided, then the server MAY omit this property, or it MAY calculate a value or choose a reasonable default value.") Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:47 PM To: Jason Crawford; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of unmapped URL I think the standard WebDAV properties MUST reflect the values of the HTTP entity headers one would get upon HEAD or GET. So it doesn't make any sense to require that a value must be present, if it's purely optional in HTTP. For instance, if a server doesn't have a content-language for a resource, it MUST NOT report it upon GET (see [1]): "If no Content-Language is specified, the default is that the content is intended for all language audiences. This might mean that the sender does not consider it to be specific to any natural language, or that the sender does not know for which language it is intended.". So: if you don't have the language, don't report it. A blank value is an illegal language tag. [1] http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.12 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:04 PM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of unmapped URL << Section 4.2: Lock-null resources removed Text mentions: "SHOULD default to reasonable, or reasonably blank, values for other properties like getcontentlanguage" I disagree: unknown properties should be treated as not being present (just like the relevant HTTP headers), NOT as blank. >> If a server creates a resource as a result of a LOCK request on an unmapped URL, I believe Julian is suggesting that if there is any doubt about what the property value should be, the property should not be created rather than set to NULL. Julian, did I get that right? Would you care to elaborate? What about a few examples? ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 18:24:53 UTC