W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: [Ietf-carddav] Comments on draft-daboo-carddav-02

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:00:12 +0200
Message-ID: <469B960C.7080905@gmx.de>
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
CC: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, ietf-carddav@osafoundation.org, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

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 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT