I support this addition to RFC2518bis. I believe it is a key mechanism needed for servers to properly support the various current (and future) WebDAV extensions. Cheers, Geoff Julian wrote on 10/14/2003 09:53:30 AM: > > > OK, > > > > so we probably should put it onto the issues list (so that it doesn't get > lost). > > Here's a proposal for the issues list: > > > Issue DAV_REQUEST_HEADER > > RFC 2518 provides a mechanism (the "DAV" response header) for a server to > indicate to a client that it supports a specific WebDAV option (e.g. "1", > "2", "version-control", etc.), but there is no complementary mechanism for a > client to indicate to a server that it understands a specific WebDAV option. > This becomes an issue when a WebDAV extension (or revision) needs to change > response formats in a way that possibly break existing clients. Detecting > client features based on a single, well-defined request header will work > better than (for instance) relying on custom headers (specified by each > extension) or "User-Agent". > > Suggested resolution: allow the use of the "DAV" header as a request header, > with the same set of values that are defined for the "DAV" > response header. > > > Regards, Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2003 13:23:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 October 2007 17:53:20 GMT