Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2007, at 4:07 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> But, as I read it, the '*' in OPTIONS * does not really >>> mean a Location *... in other words, it's not a URI per se. >>> OPTIONS * asks for the capabilities of the server itself, >>> independent of URI... At least, that's how I read it. >> >> There is no 'real' <Location "*"> >> >> There's a <Location "/*">, or a <LocationMatch ".*"> >> >> But since Location is segment-delimited, <Location "*"> would >> only affect OPTIONS *. >> > > I'm not sure what you're getting at here... Are you saying > you want: > > <Location *> > blah blah > </Location> > > to somehow affect what OPTIONS * returns?
That was my thought, yes. The more I think about this, if <Location *> is supported at all it should be the first-applied, global setting of any request, not just OPTIONS * (there really is no reason for specific exceptions.) For that matter <LocationMatch ".*" > IS supported already - those would affect and inform the client with respect to their OPTIONS * requests. As Roy points out, if auth is required for the whole server we want to tell the client that. Bill
