Other Referencing Issues
YG-7 References to Collections
YG-8, YG-11 Ref-Type and Ref-Target in Responses
Instead of No-Passthrough, use a different URL for the reference
Notes:
If a server creates a reference to a collection, is it also required to create a reference to each member of the collection? No: what collection would these references belong to? There is no good candidate. Besides, the server can parse and resolve URIs that contain the collection reference without having a reference to the collection members.
Should we require Ref-Type and Ref-Target to be returned in responses to COPY and LOCK requests? Or to any requests? The problems arise when operating on collections. Then you need to add reftype and reftarget to multistatus responses. This means extending rfc 2518’s syntax, but worse, may actually break some down-level clients. (They will expect an empty response body for a successful COPY. They will expect a prop response, not a multistatus response, for a successful LOCK.)
Alternatives to No-Passthrough:
A DAV:ref property like the DAV:source property, that a client can use if it wants to apply a request to the reference
A DAV:config property that the client can use to edit the config file to change where methods are directed