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

RE: DAV-Enabled field (was RE: A case for GETSRC)

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:56:22 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B105F84DA8@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Any analogy with POST is not very compelling.
POST started with vaguely defined semantics, and got vaguer.
GET has always had reasonably well defined semantics,
i.e. return the content of the resource identified by the specified URL.


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthieu Chevrier [mailto:mchevrier@4d.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:59 PM
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: Re: DAV-Enabled field (was RE: A case for GETSRC)

>> All we need from the protocol group is a sure way to know that a GET
>> command originated from a DAV client.  Is that so much to ask?
> To be honest: yes.
> GET is GET. It doesn't matter what client it comes from. You shouldn't try
> to change that.

apart if your company's name is Microsoft, right? Because that's precisely
what they did with 'Translate'.

It seems like we are pretty much done with this thread. Just want to add one
little thing : in the SOAP specifications, POST requests MUST have a
SoapAction field. It is not specified what this field should contain, just
that it has to be there. And noone complained that it's breaking the holy

Soap is of course a completely different protocol compared to DAV, but it's
still interesting I believe to think about why the spec writers made this
choice (or shall I say a lame hack Roy?)


Received on Saturday, 2 March 2002 10:56:54 UTC

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