- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 10:48:47 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de] Suppose I invent the Value-Added-Dummy Protocol and have a super feature that allows clients to send VAD:options XML request bodies in OPTIONS methods. Would every deltaV-compliant server choke on such client requests or just ignore the VAD:options request bodies? Good point. It doesn't make sense to require that the request body of an existing method (e.g. OPTIONS) be something not defined in the original definition of that method (since this would just lead to the kind of conflict that Stefan identified). I propose that we reword the OPTIONS extensions to say: "If the request body is DAV:options, then the response body MUST be DAV:options-respose." This then allows these kinds of parallel extensions to the OPTIONS method to coexist. This is of course very late in the cycle, but since this changes none of the semantics of the DeltaV protocol, but does allow for better interoperation between parallel extensions to the OPTIONS method, I would like to make this change if nobody objects. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 10:49:25 UTC