- From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:42:59 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 11/14/2016 09:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2016-11-14 14:42, Ken Murchison wrote: >> ... >>> o Should we use a non-protocol-specific REPORT example such as >>> DAV:sync-collection rather than using CalDAV:calendar-multiget? >>> >>> Yes, optimally one defined in the base specs. >> >> I think the most widely used REPORT that is closest to being part of the >> base specs would be DAV:sync-collection. Unless you think I should use >> DAV:version-tree from 3253 or one of the WebDAV ACL REPORTs. > > Actually, I was thinking of > <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#REPORT_expand-property>, > which "SHOULD" be supported by any server implementing REPORT. OK, I will generate an example using expand-property. Do you feel I should remove the CALDAV:calendar-multiget example? I was thinking of adding a non-exhaustive list of current REPORTs that return=minimal would apply to. Thoughts? >>> 3. Reducing WebDAV Round-Trips with "return=representation" >>> >>> The PUT, COPY, MOVE, [RFC4918] PATCH, [RFC5789] and POST [RFC5995] >>> >>> Nit: reference looks a bit weird in between. Also, PUT is defined RFC >>> 723x, which brings us to the question whether this spec needs to >>> update RFC 723x. >> >> Just remove the references altogether, or place them elsewhere? > > Remove sounds good to me. Actually, I just realized the I had commas in a stupid place. I fixed it so it now looks like this: "The PUT, COPY, MOVE [RFC4918], PATCH [RFC5789], and POST [RFC5995] methods ..." Does this look better to you? -- Kenneth Murchison Principal Systems Software Engineer Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Monday, 14 November 2016 17:43:34 UTC