- From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:53:44 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
- Message-ID: <OF61DB40FB.B5941EE7-ON85256D52.00461EF7-85256D52.0046D69D@us.ibm.com>
Yes, a user agent should ask for user confirmation before doing the forwarding, but that is standard 302 handling for a method that is not safe (i.e. MKCOL is no different from PUT, DELETE, etc. in this regard). So MKCOL should acts as is defined by section 10.3.3 of RFC-2616, so I don't see why it needs to have anything special said about it wrt 302 handling. Cheers, Geoff w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 06/27/2003 08:13:00 AM: > > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On > > Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm > > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 1:37 PM > > To: 'Webdav WG' > > Subject: RE: Issues: MKCOL_AND_302 > > > > > > > > Why do you think the answer is "a"? If the URL to which the > > 302 is redirecting the client is not mapped to a resource, > > a MKCOL to that URL can succeed (privileges permitting), so > > I would conclude that "b" is the correct answer (and therefore, > > MKCOL acts like any other method wrt 302 handling). > > But a user agent never would be able to automatically forward the MKCOL to > the target, because MKCOL isn't a safe method, right? > > Julian >
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 08:53:57 UTC