Re: HTTP URI scheme

Werner Donné schrieb:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Implementing an efficient client is a challenge if you have to
> discover the capabilities at run-time. Either you end up with

Where exactly would a "webdav" scheme help here? Can you give a 
definition what information it would provide? Would I be allowed to use 
it for resources that just support PROPFIND, for instance?

-> Granularity problem, for once.

> a lot of OPTIONS method calls or a lot of state to avoid them.
> Another alternative is recovery code for failures all over the
> place, because you can't just fail without telling the user
> in a proper way what the problem is, which depends on the
> scenario he is in. "Not implemented" is not good enough when

That's why the newer WebDAV specs provide DAV:error. And again, how 
would a different URI scheme help here?

> it is about something deep inside some logic that the user has
> triggered, because he will not be able to related it to what
> he did.
> 
> Why exactly what Apple did was a mistake?

For once, because they forced new identifiers on the web, without taking 
care of specifying what they mean (or did I miss a scheme registration?).

As far as I can tell, the only way they differ from HTTP URLs is that 
Apple's software uses them to invoke a different user agent. You don't 
need an URI scheme for that, a MIME type works just fine (see, for 
instance, <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4709.html#rfc.section.A.2>).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 09:52:53 UTC