RE: redirect ref spec, update on issue lc-85-301

I agree with Julian's rationale for adding this distinction.
This is just modeling the behavior defined by the existing standard,
not introducing new behavior.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 10/17/2003 03:47:09 PM:

> 
> Lisa,
> 
> I don't think it's up to me to answer that. The purpose of the Redirect 
Ref
> spec is
> 
> 1) to define how existing redirects behave inside WebDAV collections and
> 
> 2) how to author redirects.
> 
> The HTTP spec has decided to distinguish between these types, and 
therefore
> it makes sense to reflect that distinction in the redirect ref spec as 
well.
> I imagine that browsers should remember "how they got" to the URL when 
the
> user decides to bookmark the URL.
> 
> This feature was requested during the Last Call in spring 2000, and it 
seems
> that there was WG consensus to add that (at least this is what the 
issues
> list says). As storing a type seems to be trivial when the target URL 
needs
> to be stored anyway, and as Apache indeed distinguishes between those 
types,
> I feel it makes sense to have it authorable as well.
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:11 AM
> > To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: redirect ref spec, update on issue lc-85-301
> >
> >
> >
> > This is indisputable, but that doesn't answer my questions.
> >  - How do browsers in fact behave differently?
> >  - What is the use case for creating different redirect resource 
types?
> >
> > Lisa
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: redirect ref spec, update on issue lc-85-301
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 15:54:48 UTC