W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: [Ietf-caldav] [Fwd: draft-reschke-http-addmember-00]

From: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:54 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Cyrus Daboo <daboo@isamet.com>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>
Message-Id: <1109017914.3811.29.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 21:07 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Scott Lawrence wrote:

> > But you could just as easily and precisely define those semantics by
> > using POST and defining the mime type and operations it supports.
> 
> In which case I couldn't use the content-type of my actual request body 
> for the Content-Type request header, right?

I fear that I may have lost the thread of your comment... you cannot use
Content-Type to send anything _but_ the content type of your request
body.  

> > You won't get caught be firewalls and proxy servers that think they know
> > better about what methods are legitimate (which you most assuredly will
> > if you create a new method - ask the WebDav implementors), and you won't
> > have changed the semantics of the method at all.
> 
> I am one of these WebDAV implementors, thanks. I haven't had any issues 
> with issues for a long time.

Then you've been living on a nicer part of the net than I do.  I run a
server that provides subversion over webdav methods, and it's a routine
item to tell people to use ssl to access it so that their proxy won't
reject the webdav methods.
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 20:32:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:39 GMT