Stefan Eissing wrote: > > Am 16.07.2007 um 16:57 schrieb Julian Reschke: >>> However, I do agree that this is not an ideal state of affairs. If >>> there is consensus in the WebDAV community to do so, I agree that we >>> should write up a formal extension to MKCOL that would cover all the >>> other MKxxx's behaviors. However, I do not believe that belongs in >>> CardDAV, it should be a separate extension that CardDAV can itself >>> leverage. I would be happy to put a spec together on that (extracting >>> the behaviors from the existing specs). >> >> I think that would be great. I think all we need is a request body >> (XML + mime type) that will allow to specify a set of WebDAV >> properties, including the resource type. > > Maybe send a POST + request body to the parent collection? > > POST seems to have been avoided by WebDAV to not interfere with webapps > using the same URIs. But those days are over. That could work as well, but I don't see why we shouldn't use MKCOL when we're actually creating a collection. Best regards, Julian PS: I'm still not convinced that ADDMEMBER (with precise semantics as opposed to POST) isn't needed in HTTP -- see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-addmember-00.html>.Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 16:00:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 October 2007 17:53:27 GMT