Replying to this thread, but not all in the same email... On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Bill Roome <[email protected]> wrote: ... > And for those who think the original specification is necessary -- the > OPTIONS and 300 response and all that -- now that we've had a bake-off, > how many servers actually implemented those options?
The server that I didn't get a chance to demo did not support either, but due to the way I chose to lay out the resources, it didn't need to. Each entry provided one and only one entry, and the implementation serving the directory knew the full URI to each individual resource. Since each URI supported only one resource, OPTIONS wasn't required by the current text (Martin suggests it should be, but I'll respond to that one elsewhere in this thread). Similarly, a resource doesn't need 300 Multiple Choices in this case. Admittedly, this is the simple scenario for clients. So the rest of this thread regarding flexibility is the one that reflects my actual belief :) > How many clients > supported them? My client discovered the appropriate URI to request by recursing directories via OPTIONS requests (aside from the root directory being requested via GET). Supporting 300 Multiple Choices responses wasn't done in time, but is simple to add and there's a marker in the code to do it. Rich > - Bill Roome > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
