W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Thoughts on relation to WebDAV

From: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:22:31 +0200
Message-Id: <4345A4FF-0023-43FD-9416-FBDA85E88133@opengroupware.org>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

On 26.05.2008, at 00:04, Werner Baumann wrote:
> So support for MKCOL means the ability to reject every MKCOL-request  
> with "any valid HTTP code".


Well, as I said: "that is just how I read the combination of the specs".
My interpretation of "combination" in the given scenario is rooted on  
the title of RFC 2518: "HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring".
HTTP Extension means for me that the RFC _extends_ the HTTP  
specification, not that it restricts it. If a client is a WebDAV  
client, it automatically is a full HTTP/1.1 client, hence must support  
501 responses. And the other way around.

But really, this thread already went too far, points have been  
exchanged and are archived for further consideration.
In the end I'm mostly concerned with real world interoperability, and  
I think that the important question raised by Julian is still "where  
does it matter"?
(I think) To usefully continue the discussion you must transparently  
answer the question why, for a client, a readonly WebDAV collection  
returning 403 is different to a server which has an IP address  
protection for MKCOL on a collection.

Thanks,
   Helge
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2008 23:23:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:16 GMT