- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:41:38 +0100
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Hi.
While looking into BugZilla issue 80 ("Specify idempotence and safeness
for all new methods",
<http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80>), I noticed
that RFC2518 says that MKCOL's results aren't cacheable because it's not
idempotent (see
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#rfc.change.bz080.3>).
I think that's incorrect, because similar to PUT, repeating the same
MKCOL request multiple times will cause the server to have the same
state afterwards (just like PUT, but unlike POST).
So I fixed that, but wonder: should this affect what we say about the
cacheability of MKCOL results? Are we still saying "MUST NOT be cached"?
As a matter of fact, should we rethink that for all methods? We
currently say that PROPFIND results SHOULD NOT be cached
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#rfc.section.8.2>).
Is there any good reason for it? Should the fact that real-world WebDAV
clients *do* cache PROPFIND results tell us something? :-)
Feedback appreciated,
Julian
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 19:43:43 UTC