- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:00:56 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa, HTTP is very clear about what it means: - Temporary: follow the link, but keep accessing *this* URL - Permanent: follow the link, and forget about the original location Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 8:45 AM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: redirect ref spec, update on issue lc-85-301 > > > > > > For now I propose that the client is able to specify the > > redirection type as a resource type, such as > > "DAV:permanent-redirect-reference" and > > "DAV:temporary-redirect-reference". This spec would only > > define the behaviour for these two resource types and would > > allow future extensions using new resource types and > > suggested response codes. > > > > What's the use case for this functionality. How would a user > creating a link decide whether this was a permanent or a temporary > redirect link? Is anybody actually planning to implement a > client that would care which one it was creating? > > If there aren't implementation plans, use case, etc, then the > KISS principle suggests that we pick one. Since redirect resources > are in fact permanent until deleted (the temporariness is > completely unknown), I see no reason why they > wouldn't all be the same kind of redirect resource. > > Before we chose one HTTP response or another, it would be good > to know whether HTTP clients behave differently. I have no data > on this. > > lisa > >
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 15:01:14 UTC