Comments on draft-ietf-webdav-protocol-06.txt

7.1: Are there any atomicity guarantees for PROPFIND?  Section 8.3 could be
interpreted as applying only to depthwise operations.  For depth 0 PROPFIND,
a client should have a way to know that, for example, the values of all
the live properties in a reply were valid taken as a whole at some instant.
If such a guarantee is not provided, clients may resort to abusing the lock
mechanism.

7.10: The requirement that a COPY be octet-for-octet identical is overly
restrictive.  This prevents, for example, an intelligent HTML copy that
fixes relative links in the content such that they continue to work from
the location of the copy.

12.12.1:  Is it the intention of this protocol to not allow a server to support
different lock types in different parts of its namespace?

Editorial:

In 2.4 the value of a property is described as being a well-formed XML *document*.
However, it is the response to each method that is the well-formed document;
the value of each returned property (e.g. in PROPFIND) is just well-formed XML.

Received on Thursday, 12 February 1998 03:12:01 UTC