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

Re: New draft: draft-daboo-webdav-mkcol-00.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:59:36 +0100
Message-ID: <474188B8.4040901@gmx.de>
To: John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>
CC: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

John Barone wrote:
> I'll qualify this by saying I haven't read the spec yet (and I promise,
> I will), but why just MKCOL; why not PUT as well (maybe BIND too??? ...
> any method where you create an object)?   Again, without having read the
> spec. yet, seems like this might be focusing in on too specific a use
> case.

I'd say the reason is that we saw lots of specs creating new collection 
types with new methods, while MKCOL + additional information would be 
sufficient.

RFC2518 and RFC4918 left the body undefined, so here's an extension 
point we can use.

PUT doesn't have that extension point.

BIND doesn't create new resources but only new bindings to existing 
resources, so it doesn't seem to be relevant here.

> I can see this being very useful for setting up collections that are
> meant to be used as "application bundles", but why not try to propose a
> more generic spec. that allows for applying meta-data templates to any
> resource.

That would be interesting as well, but would be IMHO a much harder 
problem to solve. So I think it makes a lot of sense to concentrate on 
that case.

> .... of, course easy to say from the sidelines; I should also say that
> Xythos would be very interested in contributing to/reviewing such a
> spec. 

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 November 2007 12:59:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT