RE: 3xx vs RFC2518 vs redirect-ref spec

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Stefan Eissing
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:29 AM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> 
> 
> +1.
> 
> Am Dienstag, 14.10.03, um 19:23 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Geoffrey M
> Clemm:
> 
> >
> > I support this addition to RFC2518bis.
> >
> > I believe it is a key mechanism needed for servers to properly support
> > the various current (and future) WebDAV extensions.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> >
> > Julian wrote on 10/14/2003 09:53:30 AM:
> >
> > >
> > > > OK,
> > > >
> > > > so we probably should put it onto the issues list (so that it
> > doesn't get
> > > lost).
> > >
> > > Here's a proposal for the issues list:
> > >
> > >
> > > Issue DAV_REQUEST_HEADER
> > >
> > > RFC 2518 provides a mechanism (the "DAV" response header) for a
> > server to
> > > indicate to a client that it supports a specific WebDAV option (e.g.
> > "1",
> > > "2", "version-control", etc.), but there is no complementary
> > mechanism for a
> > > client to indicate to a server that it understands a specific WebDAV
> > option.
> > > This becomes an issue when a WebDAV extension (or revision) needs to
> > change
> > > response formats in a way that possibly break existing clients.
> > Detecting
> > > client features based on a single, well-defined request header will
> > work
> > > better than (for instance) relying on custom headers (specified by
> > each
> > > extension) or "User-Agent".
> > >
> > > Suggested resolution: allow the use of the "DAV" header as a request
> > header,
> > > with the same set of values that are defined for the "DAV"
> > > response header.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards, Julian
> > >
> > > --
> > > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> > >
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:19:22 UTC