W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2002

Re: iCal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:43:22 -0700
Message-ID: <052e01c25a83$e4e31c60$790ba8c0@mnotlaptop>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, <uri@w3.org>

I think they're using the scheme for dispatch, because they can't rely on
the media type being properly set, and/or they're lazy.

This probably stems from the media type in a PUT being ignored; I'm not a
WebDAV expert, but my testing with mod_put on Apache indicates that the
media type of the PUT isn't used as metadata in subsequent GETs.

It seems pretty clear cut in 2616 (section 9.6):

 [[[ The PUT method requests that the enclosed entity be stored under the
supplied Request-URI.]]]

Note that it's "entity," not just "entity-body."

[[[ The recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-* (e.g.
Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement and MUST
return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases.]]]

[[[ Unless otherwise specified for a particular entity-header, the
entity-headers in the PUT request SHOULD be applied to the resource
created or modified by the PUT.]]]

Anyone know of WebDAV (or plain PUT) implementations that correctly
implement this? I suspect it isn't widely implemented, because most Web
servers use filename extension rather than separate, per-resource metadata
to determine media type.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>; <uri@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: iCal


> Very strange.
>
> After replacing webcal: by http:, i can GET a vCalender entity.
>
> So what the hell is this URI scheme supposed to do what http: doesn't?
>
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Mark
> > Nottingham
> > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 5:14 PM
> > To: uri@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: iCal
> >
> >
> >
> > For examples of the scheme's use, see:
> >   http://www.apple.com/ical/library/
> > (links with text "subscribe")
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
> > To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>; <uri@w3.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: iCal
> >
> >
> > >
> > > OOps...
> > >
> > > http://www.apple.com/ical/
> > >
> > > I believe it does support iCalendar, judging from its publication
> > format.
> > >
> > > I know that Outlook/Exchange utilizes iCalendar, but AFAIK they use
a
> > > proprietary protocol to publish calendars and integrate with e-mail
> > > (please correct me where I'm wrong), whereby iCal is using
HTTP/WebDAV
> > and
> > > (unfortunately) URI schemes (instead of media types), respectively.
As a
> > > result, I don't think they'll interoperate in many cases (i.e., I
can't
> > > use iCal instead of Outlook to keep up with my corporate calendar
> > > solution).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
> > > To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>; <uri@w3.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 5:04 AM
> > > Subject: RE: iCal
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't see the link?  As far as I know, Apple supports iCalendar
RFC
> > > 2445, which is also supported in MS Outlook and undoubtedly many
other
> > > clients..
> > >
> > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.txt
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:58 PM
> > > > To: uri@w3.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Apple's iCal [1] allows you to publish calendars (using the iCal
> > > format)
> > > > to Web servers and later retrieve them, using WebDAV*. However,
they
> > > use a
> > > > non-HTTP URI scheme to denote a calendar - 'webcal'.
> > > >
> > > > Is this new, and if so, can pressure be put upon the Apple W3C
folks?
> > > This
> > > > is not a small abuse; I fear 'gif' and 'html' URI schemes will be
> > > close
> > > > behind if we're not careful.
> > > >
> > > > * They claim it requires WebDAV, but I was able to successfully
> > > publish my
> > > > calendar to a server that only supports PUT (as any REAL Web
server
> > > > should). I don't have data yet as to whether they excercise
anything
> > > else
> > > > in DAV...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mark Nottingham
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 13:46:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:04 UTC