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

Re: [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 09:15:44 -0800
Message-Id: <fb2d7d8d8f59e4b7c9b1ba9dae74b198@osafoundation.org>
Cc: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Dec 2, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> I finally paged in enough context to be able to consider this set of 
>> changes.
>> In particular, the justification, from bug text:
>> <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188>
>> "The difference here is that with the originally proposed extension, 
>> the client
>> can tell whether the server evaluated the extension, while with the 
>> definition
>> in RCF2518bis, it can't (it has no way knowing whether the server 
>> just ignored
>> the extension, or happens to have no dead properties)."
>> That's not quite true, the server MUST support dead-props if it 
>> advertises
>> support for 'bis'.   Besides, a smaller fix could be for the server 
>> to return an
>> extra element saying "no-dead-props".
> But if a server implements "bis", it MUST also support lots of other 
> unrelated features. This is a question of granularity, and optimally, 
> we won't need "bis" at all because all the things we add can be 
> discovered individually (such as support for DAV:lockroot, for 
> example).

This isn't my idea of optimality.  Servers should implement all of 
RFC2518bis, not cherry-pick bits and pieces.

Received on Sunday, 4 December 2005 17:16:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:34 UTC