- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:09:25 -0700
- To: "'Stefan Eissing'" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>
- Cc: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
That wouldn't necessarily break, depending on what you're checking. I assume you're checking a lock token because etags aren't defined for collections. E.g we could also make RFC2518bis clear on whether you can apply a lock token (for a depth infinity lock) to any URL included in the scope of the lock. If we require servers to accept this as a valid use of the lock token, then the untagged production applying to the Request-URI still works in this case. lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Stefan Eissing > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:44 AM > To: Clemm, Geoff > Cc: 'Webdav WG' > Subject: Re: Limiting the scope of an untagged If Header production (was: > RE: If Header: evaluation of all assertions) > > > Another possible "breakage" is use of the untagged if header for > PUT on unmapped resources. At least our server uses then the > untagged production to check the parent resource. > > //Stefan > > Am Sonntag, 13.10.02, um 19:36 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Clemm, Geoff: > > > I am somewhat concerned about the effect of this change on > > the semantics of existing clients. > > > > For example, do any clients today submit the etag of both the source > > and the destination resource of a MOVE in an untagged If production? > > If so, this change would remove the etag check on the Destination, > > and thereby break the overwrite protection for that request. > > > > But if we won't be breaking existing clients, I fully support this > > change, since it simplifies and clarifies the semantics of the > > If header. > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > > > > Also, I would clarify what the untagged if production refers to, and it > > should probably refer only to the resource named in the Request-URI. > > >
Received on Monday, 14 October 2002 13:10:27 UTC