- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 01:58:48 -0700
- To: "Harald Alvestrand (E-mail)" <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>, "Keith Moore (E-mail)" <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Cc: "'WEBDAV Mailing List'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Here is my 1-2 paragraph summary of the WEBDAV Working Group meeting held at the Munich IETF. The WEBDAV Working Group met at the Munich IETF on Monday, August 11, 1997, from 13:00 to 15:00. There were 54 attendees throughout the duration of the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Jim Whitehead, and notes were recorded by Del Jensen. The meeting began with a short overview presentation on WebDAV, which was followed by a presentation giving an overview of the design of the properties and collections functionality in the WebDAV protocol specification. After this presentation, the remainder of the meeting was concerned with discussing a series of open issues. During the issues discussion, the attendees were in favor of the following recommendations: - The DAV property identifiers (i.e., ";DAV/" + property URL), discussed in Section 2.4 of draft-ietf-webdav-requirements-01.txt, should not be used, and should be removed from the spec. - The SEARCH method (Section 2.6.5) should be renamed to PROPGET (or GETPROP or FINDPROP), and should be limited to retrieving just named resources from a given resource. There should be an additional mechanism for retrieving the names of all properties on a given resource without having to retrieve their values as well. - The property attributes "live" and "readonly" (Section 2.3.1, 2.3.2) should not be returned with each property instance retrieval, but should instead be retrievable via a schema discovery mechanism (TBD) which would state the extent (i.e., which namespace) and attributes (live, readonly) of a property. - The Depth header (and hence recursive semantics for method invocations) should be moved to a separate specification, which will proceed separately from draft-ietf-webdav-protocol. There was a suggestion to not use a Depth header, but to instead define separate functions (e.g., DEEPCOPY) for the recursive analog to existing methods. - Atomic locking of collections (Section 5.3.1.2 of draft-ietf-webdav-re quirements-01.txt) was discussed, and it was agreed that the requirement should stay as-is, that efforts should be made to satisfy this requirement in the protocol specification, but that there should be an awareness that this requirement might not be satisfied. - Authoring support for language variants was discussed, and no firm resolution was achieved. - Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Received on Thursday, 14 August 1997 05:04:42 UTC