W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:45:56 +0100
To: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: <eran@hueniverse.com>, <jar@creativecommons.org>, <connolly@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5CAA7B4.DF2C%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2009-02-24 19:05, "ext Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>> ...
>> Perhaps you should split URIQA from PROPFIND since your summary of PROPFIND
>> does not correctly capture its properties, and suggests URIQA is essentially
>> equivalent, which it clearly is not.
>> ...
> I think PROPFIND could be considered a superset, thus the functionality
> provided by MGET could potentially made available using PROPFIND, for
> instance with a new "description" property. (and, of course, MPUT and
> MDELETE could then be mapped to PROPPATCH).
> BR, Julian

Well, as noted before, there is conceptual overlap, but PROPFIND imposes a
lot more overhead and housekeeping requirements on clients, including the
need to submit XML, etc.

I actually see URIQA and WebDAV as complimentary protocols, each optimized
for a particular purpose, but which could certainly share some common
implementation components (let's not confuse protocol with implementation).

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:44:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:00 UTC