Subject: Collections ending in slashes: consensus reversal?

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:34:10 -0800

At the Interop working group meeting several months ago, the consensus
of those attendees was that servers should be more strongly encouraged
to consistently end collection URLs with trailing slashes (TS).
Presumably this would replace some instances of SHOULD with MUST etc.

Today however, a different group of WG attendees came to the opposite
conclusion: that servers aren't going to get better at this (they
already have their reasons if they're not using TS consistently, e.g.
performance concerns of finding out if an internal resource is a
collection).  If servers won't get any better, then it's more pragmatic
to encourage clients to check for the TS all the time. Under this view,
clients should be easily capable of examining the TS before
concatenating the name of a new resource they're about to create.
Resource type is the correct way to determine whether a resource is a
collection.

There is some fallout if we move to the model of saying that it doesn't
matter whether the server uses a TS ending or not.  For example, if a
client creates a collection without a TS, and the server prefers to use
TS the server should respond with Content-Location and the "normal" name
for the collection. Also, vice versa. This means that the client knows
what to expect if it then does a PROPFIND on the resource. 

In other words, this puts the onus for handling TS on the client. 

I'd like to see some discussion if people have anything to add, or
summary of advantages & such. I'm thinking probably a straw poll shortly
if Jim concurs.

Lisa

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:34:36 -0800

What is a resource type?

....Roy

p.s. it is impossible to reach WG consensus at a face-to-face meeting,
even a regular one.

---

From: Matthew Wiseman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:03:26 -0500

Can someone tell me how to get off this list? I've tried a couple of times.
I'm sure you are all fine people, but this is not information I need. Thanks
for your kind help and generosity.
-- 
Matthew Wiseman, President
Potato Communications, Inc.

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:43:47 +0100

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 8:35 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault
> Cc: Webdav WG
> Subject: Re: Collections ending in slashes: consensus reversal?
>
>
>
> What is a resource type?

The concept defined by RFC2518, section 13.9. Specifically, a resource with
type DAV:collection is a WebDAV (something where when you apply PROPFIND
depth 1, internal members are going to be enumerated).

> p.s. it is impossible to reach WG consensus at a face-to-face meeting,

So do you have any guidance how a working group is supposed to resolve open
issues, if not by face-to-face and on-the-mailing list discussions?

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:16:46 -0800

> What is a resource type?

RFC 2518, Sections 13.9 and 12.2.

> p.s. it is impossible to reach WG consensus at a face-to-face meeting,

Lisa was very careful to state that it was meeting attendees, not the WG,
reaching consensus.

- Jim

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:09:47 -0800

> depth 1, internal members are going to be enumerated).

Then the issue should state that, not "resource type".  It has to be 
something
that the server has specifically told the client.

> issues, if not by face-to-face and on-the-mailing list discussions?

We discuss them in both places (and in the hallways), and only poll for
consensus on the mailing list.  Otherwise, you'll just piss off the 
people
who don't have enough money to attend F2F meetings.

....Roy

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:39:20 +0100

> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:10 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Lisa Dusseault; Webdav WG
> ...
people

I think this is what we are doing.

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:00:17 -0800

> I think this is what we are doing.

To be clear, we do poll for consensus in person, but that's a common
IETF practice (sometimes implemented as a hum in large meetings).  We
have always brought in-person discussions and "conclusions" (to avoid
the word "decisions" to the list for finality.  That's why I mentioned
having a straw poll on the list shortly if discussion points that way.

Lisa