- 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>
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 UTC