RE: Binding loops and PROPFIND clarification needed (was Re: COPY and bindings) from Jason Crawford on 2003-08-12 (w3c-dist-auth@w3.org from July to September 2003)

From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:06:35 -0400
To: nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3.org@smallcue.com
Cc:
Message-ID: <OF6CCF32EB.A33DA232-ON85256D80.001B1A2A-85256D80.001C1209@us.ibm.com>

> I think the granularity of <process-208> is too fine. 
> I'd prefer to just allow the use of the DAV header as a request header, 
> and if the client says: 
> 
> PROPFIND 
> DAV: 1,2,bind 
> 
> and then the server can use 208 responses (i.e. because "bind" appears 
> in the request DAV header). 
This sounds good to me.

If we start having trouble managing all those values, we can explore 
another
approach.  In the meantime, the binding spec will need to define this DAV: 
bind
header value and indicate what servers can do with a PROPFIND in it's 
absense.

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 01:06:47 UTC