Re: PATCH and WebDAV, was Re: PATCH Draft

Hi James,

--On June 26, 2007 10:23:58 AM -0700 James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> I can understand why this would be desirable. I, however, am nowhere
> near qualified to discuss any reasonable considerations for WebDAV.

Right, but your co-author is :-)

> Regarding the "DAV:supported-patch-formats" suggestion, why wouldn't the
> Accept-Patch response header be enough?

Typically WebDAV clients tend to prefer to get resource-specific 
information via PROPFIND (properties) rather than OPTIONS (response 
headers) - ETag is a good example of that: there is an ETag response header 
and a getetag WebDAV property. The cost of exposing patch format 
information as a WebDAV property is minimal and the benefits are several, 
including the fact that a client can do a Depth:1 PROPFIND to get all 
properties of all resources in a collection all in one go without having to 
do OPTIONS on each one separately.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 17:39:24 UTC