- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:08:32 +0100
- To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 2016-11-14 18:42, Ken Murchison wrote: > > > 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? One example should be enough. > I was thinking of adding a non-exhaustive list of current REPORTs that > return=minimal would apply to. Thoughts? Can we clarify this based on the report's response format? >>>> 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? A bit, but it's still misleading for PUT, right? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 14 November 2016 22:09:18 UTC