> Obeisance to the RFC gods is nice, but it is still up to the client to say > "I was redirected to a different URL, so the one you gave me isn't DAV > capable." That doesn't violate RFCs, AFAICT. Let's let them work. BTW, I would have suggested browsermatch, but the fact is that Microsoft is just taking an overly-anal interpretation of RFC 2616 and puking on the 301 instead of doing the automatic redirect of OPTIONS. This is the fault of the wording in RFC 2616 as much as anything else. ....Roy
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir rbb
- RE: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Peter J. Cranstone
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Bill Stoddard
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir rbb
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Bill Stoddard
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Jim Winstead
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Greg Stein
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Roy T. Fielding
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Bill Stoddard
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Greg Stein
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir James A. Sutherland
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Dale Ghent
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir James A. Sutherland
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Greg Stein
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir James A. Sutherland
- Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir Rodent of Unusual Size
