W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: Binding loops and PROPFIND clarification needed (was Re: COPY and bindings)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:53:11 +0200
To: "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEEMIBAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:20 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Binding loops and PROPFIND clarification needed (was Re: COPY
> and bindings)
> I think the granularity of <process-208> is too fine.

Well, we could choose a different name and make it less granular if you
prefer that.

> I'd prefer to just allow the use of the DAV header as a request header,
> and if the client says:
> DAV: 1,2,bind
> and then the server can use 208 responses (i.e. because "bind" appears
> in the request DAV header).

I dislike inventing new headers, but in fact that wouldn't be a new header.
So we would define that clients can claim compatibility to a specific DAV
feature by sending the header. In this particular case, we'd still need to
define what "bind" means when it appears in a "DAV" header, because
currently the draft doesn't.

> Or if the request header should have its own name, use something like
> a "DAV-CLIENT" header.

Let's try to avoid that.

I'd like to state again why I prefer to marshall this in the request body:
we don't need to think about what the header means for methods other than
PROPFIND, and we can use the same extension mechanism to fix another issue
RFC2518/ACL altready has (not being able to marshall information about the
fact that the content of a collection couldn't be listed).


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:53:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:29 UTC