httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir
Date Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:49:51 GMT
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:09:02PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> > The question is NOT about how GETs are handled. We all agree that
> > a GET should be redirected.
> > 
> > The issue is for methods *OTHER* than GET.
> I disagree.  I believe the issue is for *all* methods.

We're agreed on GET. Not so for the others. That's where the issue is :-)

> > If you redirect an OPTIONS /dav, then WebFolders says that /dav is not
> > DAV-enabled. It's a no-go from the start.
> > 
> > Basically, doing a redirect on /dav is not "being lenient in what we
> > accept", even though Ken said we should be. We know what was meant,
> > so we should go ahead and respond.
> <sarcasm> How wonderful it must be to have such omniscience. </sarcasm>
> No, we do NOT know what was meant.  We can guess, and probably be
> right, but we cannot KNOW.

Eh? How is that. If translates to a directory in the
filesystem, then what else can it possibly mean?

> +1 on an envariable switch controlling whether we treat "foo" and
> "foo/" as equivalent (for ALL methods).  -1 on redirecting some
> and not redirecting others without configurability.

RFC 2616 has special language about redirecting GET and HEAD. If you want to
obey the RFCs, then you will redirect specific methods. Not all.

Another answer may to stop the redirection altogether and use the
Content-Location header.

Ken: go find the RFC that talks about trailing slashes.


Greg Stein,

View raw message