W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: Binding loops and PROPFIND clarification needed (was Re: COPY and bindings)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:30:38 +0200
To: "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEDAIBAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:47 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Binding loops and PROPFIND clarification needed (was Re: COPY
> and bindings)
>
>
>
> Since this statement of "what protocol extensions I understand" is
> a generically interesting one, including for requests that do not have
> an extensible body (e.g. PUT), I suggest we marshall this information
> in the form of a header, not as an XML tag in the body of the request.

Yes and no. As you say, using headers has the advantage to work with PUT.
However, I'd like to avoid adding headers because of the namespacing
problems. If we go down that road, we really should adopt an extensible
scheme, such as the HTTP Extension Framework (RFC2774).

> Other than that, your proposal is fine with me.  This is clearly something
> which should eventually find its way into a successor of 2518, but I'm
> happy to introduce it in the binding protocol first.
>
> I'd like to see more folks comment on this though, before moving in that
> direction.
>
> WRT to the 208 approach vs. the alternative you described, I believe that
> the 208 approach is the simplest approach, and I do not think
> it is a benefit to try to couple two very different kinds of situations,
i.e. how
> to marshall a recursive structure vs. how to report on an access
> restriction.

OK, here'a proposal: add a DAV:response-format element to DAV:propfind.
Members of DAV:response-format indicate that the client is prepared to
process particular response formats that are not strictly compatible tp
RFC2518. In this case, a client would submit

<propfind xmlns="DAV:">
  <response-format><process-208/></response-format>
  <allprop/>
</propfind>

(I'd like to be able to re-use that for other extensions, therefore a
container element seems to be a good idea).

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 03:30:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT