- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:28:03 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > One thing I noticed when checking this against and editing the text > (sometimes this turns up new observations): We actually use the Location > header in response to a MOVE request, in section 8.9.5 of RFC2518. Yet > there's no explanation for this -- the text around the example doesn't > indicate whether the server could have chosen a different destination > URL (which seems very harmful to interoperability to me) or, if not, why > the Location header is even needed. > ... RFC2616 recommends to use the Location header when a new resource is created: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.30> That is, if you consider MOVE as a sequence of COPY-then-DELETE, this is exactly the right thing to do. As I personally prefer MOVE to work differently, I'd be happy to change that example, but that's *really* a different issue from what we were discussing here. Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2005 08:28:30 UTC