Re: 3xx vs RFC2518 vs redirect-ref spec

I agree, let's add this to 2518bis - the proposed mechnism is simple and 
easy for developers to understand.


Elias


Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

>
> 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
> >