- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 09:04:25 -0700
- To: Roberto Polli <roberto@teamdigitale.governo.it>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On Sep 3, 2020, at 1:57 AM, Roberto Polli <roberto@teamdigitale.governo.it> wrote: > > Il giorno gio 3 set 2020 alle ore 09:11 Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> ha scritto: >>> ... draft-snell-search-method-02.txt .. >>> What do people think about it -- is it worthwhile? Are there any problems? Consider this a prelude to a CfA... >> The draft currently is minimal in that it re-uses an existing method, >> making it more generic (which seems to be good in general). > 1- I like the general idea; > 2- such a feature is useful; > 3- implying that an xml payload must return a webdav response can > limit its adoption or foster non-compliant implementation (Eg. xml > requests returning non-webdav responses). This will happen unless we > revise https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5323, which is widely deployed. > While I'm no fan of xml, this is quite a limitation. > > ``` > for backwards compatibility with existing WebDAV > implementations, SEARCH requests that use the text/xml or > application/xml content types MUST be processed per the requirements > established by [RFC5323]. > ``` Note that is triggered by the media types, not the data format. I don't see that as a limitation at all. Those general types don't say anything useful for the recipient. That's why applications of XML are supposed to use a more specific +xml media type instead, and we can require that of future implementations without hindering XML as a payload. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2020 16:04:46 UTC