- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:33:23 +0200
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
- Cc: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Am Dienstag den, 17. September 2002, um 17:49, schrieb Clemm, Geoff: > Good question, Julian. > > I was going to respond "so that client side relative URL > processing is correct". But of course, a better > way to handle that would be for the GET to just return the > slash-terminated name (or even better, the resource that it > is really redirecting the request to, such as "index.html") > in the Content-Location field, since the client is required > to use the value in the Content-Location field as the base > for relative URL processing. I agree with you that RFC 2616 clearly states this purpose of Content-Location. However, neither IE 5.0, nor IE 6.0, nor Mozilla 1.1 gives my beautiful Content-Location header any justice: it is completely ignored when resolving relative uri references inside the HTML page. So, for all practical purposes, a 302 is required. //Stefan > So a 302 redirect is not even required for GET processing > (i.e. the server can just automatically forward the request > without an extra roundtrip for the 302 redirect). > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:24 AM > To: Clemm, Geoff; 'Webdav WG' > Subject: RE: Issue: Requiring server to use / terminated URL for > returned collections > > > > Like Geoff said, > > except: > >> As indicated above, the 302 redirect is only required for a GET, and >> WebDAV clients commonly use PROPFIND and not GET to retrieve the state >> of a collection. > > Where does this distinction come from? > > I really don't want to get into a situation where 1) HEAD and 2) > PROPFIND/depth 0 say different things about the same resource. > > Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 09:33:30 UTC