Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of unmapped URL

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:05:08 -0400

What are other people's views on this? Should live properties for which
the server doesn't have an easy value be left blank or should the
property not exist?

My reasoning was that live properties like "getcontentlanguage" should
be required, thus should exist on every WebDAV resource, even if the
value must be blank. Otherwise a server can completely omit these
properties and still claim compliance.

(Side note: If required live properties like "getcontentlanguage" can be
missing on a WebDAV resource, then we need to clarify under what
conditions they may be missing.  I'm thinking along these lines: "If the
latest client PUT request contains a Content-Language header, the value
of this header MUST be preserved in the getcontentlanguage property
value. If the Content-Language header is never provided, then the server
MAY omit this property, or it MAY calculate a value or choose a
reasonable default value.")

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:47 PM
To: Jason Crawford; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of
unmapped URL

I think the standard WebDAV properties MUST reflect the values of the
HTTP entity headers one would get upon HEAD or GET. So it doesn't make
any sense to require that a value must be present, if it's purely
optional in HTTP.

For instance, if a server doesn't have a content-language for a
resource, it MUST NOT report it upon GET (see [1]): "If no
Content-Language is specified, the default is that the content is
intended for all language audiences. This might mean that the sender
does not consider it to be specific to any natural language, or that the
sender does not know for which language it is intended.". So: if you
don't have the language, don't report it. A blank value is an illegal
language tag.

[1] http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.12

	-----Original Message-----
	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
	Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:04 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of
unmapped URL

	<<
	Section 4.2: Lock-null resources removed
	
	Text mentions: "SHOULD default to reasonable, or reasonably
blank, values
	for other properties like getcontentlanguage"
	
	I disagree: unknown properties should be treated as not being
present (just
	like the relevant HTTP headers), NOT as blank.
	
	If a server creates a resource as a result of a LOCK request on
an unmapped URL, I believe Julian is suggesting that if there is any
doubt about what the property value should be, the property should not
be created rather than set to NULL.
	
	Julian, did I get that right? Would you care to elaborate? What
about a few examples?
	
	------------------------------------------
	Phone: 914-784-7569, [email-masked]

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 00:24:17 +0200

Lisa,

I think we should just re-state that the DAV: get* properties reflect the
values of the HTTP entity headers. They may be present or not. If they are
present, they MUST conform to the definitions in RFC2616, in particular,
they MUST NOT be blank.

It doesn't make sense to require PROPFIND to return something different from
GET/HEAD. If the server doesn't know the content language, that's it. Nobody
is served by somebody trying to come up with a "default".

Guess what: the Microsoft Webfolder client PUTs all files with a content
language header of "en_US" - even on a german Windows installation. That's a
bug, not a feature.

Julian
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:05 AM
  To: Julian Reschke; Jason Crawford; [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of unmapped
URL

  What are other people's views on this? Should live properties for which
the server doesn't have an easy value be left blank or should the property
not exist?

  My reasoning was that live properties like "getcontentlanguage" should be
required, thus should exist on every WebDAV resource, even if the value must
be blank. Otherwise a server can completely omit these properties and still
claim compliance.

  (Side note: If required live properties like "getcontentlanguage" can be
missing on a WebDAV resource, then we need to clarify under what conditions
they may be missing.  I'm thinking along these lines: "If the latest client
PUT request contains a Content-Language header, the value of this header
MUST be preserved in the getcontentlanguage property value. If the
Content-Language header is never provided, then the server MAY omit this
property, or it MAY calculate a value or choose a reasonable default
 value.")

  Lisa

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:47 PM
  To: Jason Crawford; [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of unmapped
URL

  I think the standard WebDAV properties MUST reflect the values of the HTTP
entity headers one would get upon HEAD or GET. So it doesn't make any sense
to require that a value must be present, if it's purely optional in HTTP.

  For instance, if a server doesn't have a content-language for a resource,
it MUST NOT report it upon GET (see [1]): "If no Content-Language is
specified, the default is that the content is intended for all language
audiences. This might mean that the sender does not consider it to be
specific to any natural language, or that the sender does not know for which
language it is intended.". So: if you don't have the language, don't report
it. A blank value is an illegal language tag.

    -----Original Message-----

    <<

    Text mentions: "SHOULD default to reasonable, or reasonably blank,
values
    for other properties like getcontentlanguage"

    I disagree: unknown properties should be treated as not being present
(just
    like the relevant HTTP headers), NOT as blank.

    If a server creates a resource as a result of a LOCK request on an
unmapped URL, I believe Julian is suggesting that if there is any doubt
about what the property value should be, the property should not be created
rather than set to NULL.

    Julian, did I get that right? Would you care to elaborate? What about a
few examples?