- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:20:30 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
On Oct 22, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Lisa, it seems that whatever we discuss, you try to turn this into a > discussion about even more spec text. RFC2518bis doesn't need to say > anything about it. Whatever RFC2616 already says and a future WebDAV > REDIRECT spec will say is sufficient. You say that as though it's a bad thing! Whenever we discuss or disagree on the mailing list, I find that's a good case for narrowing down what can be done in implementations of RFC2518bis; to reduce variety between implementations, improve interoperability and have a complete spec that doesn't send people running to the mailing list all too often. We can at least think and talk about the issue -- if we *do* come to consensus that Location header is not appropriate in 207 responses (or other new response codes defined by WebDAV, or new methods defined by WebDAV) then any of that would be good information to add to the spec. OTOH if we come to consensus that we shouldn't restrict Location header use but leave it undefined on most response types, I hope there's a good reason for that which would come out in a discussion. Lisa
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2005 18:20:38 UTC