Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"

Jim Whitehead wrote:
 > ...
> My solution to this issue is to add the text:
> 
> "Use of the Location header with the methods and response codes defined 
> in this specification is intentionally undefined."

No, that's completely incorrect. It's defined in RFC2616, and what 
RFC2616 says also applies to WebDAV. For instance, it's absolutely 
well-defined what it means to get a 302 + Location header upon PROPFIND.

> And leave it at that. This lets clients know they can't depend on the 
> feature, and lets servers know they probably shouldn't go there. But, if 
> a later spec. does add something here (like a refined REDIRECT spec.), 
> then the door is left open for new behavior.
> 
> Can we please close this issue?

As far as I can tell, the simplest way to close this issue is to revert 
back to what RFC2518 says.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Saturday, 29 October 2005 08:25:49 UTC