- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:43:22 -0700
- 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