W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: DAV Header and extend

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:14:58 +0200
To: "Jim Luther" <luther.j@apple.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEBIEMAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>


given the fact that Apache already uses this extension syntax, we're
probably stuck with it.

However, I hereby claim that extending the DAV: header with private
extensions is entirely unnecessary, and that RFC2518bis should discourage


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Luther
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:08 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: DAV Header and extend
> Back in May 2000, there was a discussion at
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2000AprJun/0005.html>
> of how extend was defined in the DAV header definition:
> 	DAV = "DAV" ":" "1" ["," "2"] ["," 1#extend]
> The consensus of that thread seemed to be that extend should be defined:
> 	extend = Coded-URL | token
> However, the issue is still listed as an open issue.
> Why did I bring this up? Because I finally found an Apache 2.0 server I
> could test against to determine why our WebDAV client gave read-only
> access to those servers. The problem was caused by a combination of the
> Coded-URL in the DAV Header from the Apache 2 server and a bug in our
> code that handles DAV headers. To fix this problem, I need to handle the
> DAV header correctly. To handle it correctly, I need extend to be
> defined.
> At this point, I guess I'll write my code to handle extend as defined
> above. However, it would be nice if this issue could be closed so that I
> don't have to worry about someone else throwing something new into the
> DAV header in the future that my code can't handle.
> - Jim
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 17:15:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:25 UTC