RE: redirect references protocol: MKRESOURCE issue

I don't know whether they are equally prevalent, but I certainly
see many examples of each (and know of web-indexing programs that
act differently depending on which it sees).

Cheers,
Geoff


Lisa wrote on 01/07/2004 06:20:01 PM:

> 
> That does seem simpler to me, if we *do* in fact need both 301-style and 

> 302-style.  I recall the explanation that HTTP supports both, but that
> doesn't
> prove that WebDAV needs to create both.  Are both equally prevalent on 
the
> Web?
> 
> lisa
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:14 PM
> > To: webdav
> > Subject: Re: redirect references protocol: MKRESOURCE issue
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I would suggest that we resolve these issues as follows:
> > 
> > - allow PROPPATCH to update the DAV:reftarget property
> > 
> > - have an additional property that specifies the status that
> > will be returned, e.g. DAV:redirectref-status
> > that has an integer value of either 301 or 302.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff 
> > 
> > Julian on 01/05/2004 07:40:42 AM:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > there was an outstanding issue to replace MKRESOURCE by a 
> > less generic 
> > > method that only creates redirects and does not overlap 
> > with PROPPATCH.
> > > 
> > > This was added in the current edits at 
> > > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-
> > > protocol-latest.html#METHOD_MKREDIRECTREF>.
> > > 
> > > The following issues remain:
> > > 
> > > - missing ability to update the target without having to delete and 
> > > re-create the redirect resource (proposal: just add 
> > UPDATEREDIRECTREF)
> > > 
> > > - missing ability to create specific redirect types (such as those 
> > > generating a 301 rather than a 302)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Regards, Julian
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 18:29:25 UTC