RE: 3xx vs RFC2518 vs redirect-ref spec

My first choice is to get this in the base spec, since I think it is
a bug that the server can register what options it supports, but a
client cannot.

I could live with Julian's approach, but I'd rather not, since I think
this is a general problem that merits a clean extensible solution
(as opposed to a one-off hack :-).

Cheers,
Geoff


"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 10/09/2003 12:54:58 PM:

> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm
> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 6:46 PM
> > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: 3xx vs RFC2518 vs redirect-ref spec
> >
> >
> >
> > For (1), I could go either way on this, but if we did give a client
> > a way to say this, I suggest that it be in the form of a request DAV
> > header, and that we introduce a symbol that means "the redirect-ref
> > standard", e.g. something like:
> >   DAV: 1, 2, redirect
> 
> Well, I'd rather not do that unless it's in the base spec (RFC2518bis). 
The
> redirect draft already defines a new header, so that one can easily be
> used....
> 
> > Note that I am bundling this into the general "I understand the
> > redirect spec" token, since I'd rather not introduce a new token for
> > each detailed bit of functionality.
> >
> > For (2), Julian's suggestion is fine, but shouldn't the Location
> > node be optional (i.e. "Location?").
> 
> 
> Of course :-)
> 
> Julian
>

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 13:56:06 UTC