Re: Proposal for response URLs in Multi-Status: always based on Request-URI

Note that my +1 was for interpreting relative references in the
DAV:response elements as being relative to the Request URI, but
as Julian states below, there should be no restriction on a URI
that appears in the DAV:response element (i.e. they can reference
any resource, not just resources under the Request URI).

I vote that we adopt Julian's text.

Cheers,
Geoff
 

Julian wrote on 12/04/2005 07:26:05 PM:

> 
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > We've discussed the allowability of relative URLs in the 'href' 
element 
> 
> I think we should stick with proper terminology: there is no such thing 
> as a relative URL, RFC3986 calls these things "relative references".
> 
> > in the 'response' elements of Multi-Status responses.  I'll call each 
of 
> > these a "response URL" for now.  I believe our conclusion was that in 
> > response to PROPFIND, response URLs which are relative URLs MUST be 
> > relative to the Request-URI, and those which are absolute MUST begin 
> > with the Request-URI (exactly the same scheme, host, port and path).
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > For MOVE and COPY, one could consider relative URLs as being resolved 
> > against the Destination header instead of the Request-URI, but I don't 

> > believe that anybody does this.  One could also imagine seeing 
absolute 
> > URLs that were part of the Destination namespace rather than the 
> > Request-URI namespace, but again, I don't believe that anybody does 
this.
> > 
> > Thus, are there any objections if we treat all Multi-Status responses 
> > the same way -- for MOVE and COPY as well as PROPFIND and PROPATCH? 
> > That the response URLs MUST always be in the Request-URI namespace, 
and 
> > if relative, be resolved against the Request-URI?
> 
> No. Of course a multistatus upon COPY/MOVE can contain URLs below the 
> destination URI, not the Request-URI. And other methods such as REPORT 
> and SEARCH may return URLs completely independently of the Request-URI.
> 
> But yes, if an <href> is a relative reference, it is always relative to 
> the Request-URI. That was certainly the consensus each time this was 
> discussed.
> 
> > Would making this requirement a MUST for all Multi-Status responses 
> > break any extensions using Multi-Status -- or do we limit the 
> > requirement to Multi-Status responses to methods defined in RFC2518bis 

> > only?
> 
> 
> See above, and please review 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-
> latest.html#url.handling> 
> (you do remember that we agreed on the conference call that I should 
> make a proposal for spec text, right?).
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>