W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Some questions about WebDAV

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:33:00 +0200
Message-ID: <42DCACAC.4000605@gmx.de>
To: ChunWei Ho <fuzzybr80@gmail.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

ChunWei Ho wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I just read the WebDAV spec (http://www.webdav.org/specs/rfc2518.html)
> and hope I could get some clarifications here :)
> 
> (a) The spec example for PROPFIND has the server returning property:
> <R:bigbox>
>     <R:BoxType>Box type A</R:BoxType>
> </R:bigbox>
> in response to request for property R:bigbox
> 
> Does this mean that "<R:BoxType>Box type A</R:BoxType>" is the
> property value? If the server supports setting of arbitary dead
> properties, does it have to deal with potential XML substructures like
> these as a property value?

Yes.

> (b) The PROPFIND <response>s contain <prop>s grouped by their status.
> This sort of grouping is not compulsory? example,
> 
> <D:response>
>  <D:propstat>
>       <D:prop>
>            <D:creationdate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:00:24 GMT</D:creationdate>
>            <D:lastmodified>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:00:24 GMT</D:lastmodified>
>       </D:prop>
>       <D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>
>  </D:propstat>
> </D:response>
> 
> vs
>  
> <D:response>
>  <D:propstat>
>       <D:prop>
>            <D:creationdate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:00:24 GMT</D:creationdate>
>       </D:prop>
>       <D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>
>  </D:propstat>
>  <D:propstat>
>       <D:prop>
>            <D:lastmodified>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:00:24 GMT</D:lastmodified>
>       </D:prop>
>       <D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>
>  </D:propstat>
> </D:response>

I wouldn't say grouping is required (although it's nice because it 
reduces the size). Clients shouldn't rely on it though (I've seen at 
least one server not grouping the properties).

Do you think this is something the next spec revision should clarify?

> (c) The HTTP conditional Ifs (If-Modified-Since, If-Match, etc) are
> not applied to the webDAV introduced methods? Even if Depth header is
> '0'?

That's indeed a very good question. I would assume that currently most 
servers do not do this for PROPFIND/COPY and so on, but I think RFC2616 
requires this.

We should collect implementation data (meaning: write test cases) first, 
and then let's discuss what we do about it...


Best regards, Julian


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2005 07:33:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:09 GMT