- From: Peter Raymond <Peter.Raymond@merant.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:40:32 -0000
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20CF1CE11441D411919C0008C7C5A13B034B838B@stalmail.eu.merant.com>
Hi, A group of people here at MERANT have recently completed reading/reviewing the bindings protocol document. We recorded some issues/questions about the specification. I understand that this document has completed a final call period, but does anyone know the status of the document, there are open issues etc, is there a timeframe for it becoming a "proposed standard"? Is anyone actively editing or revising the document? Here are the questions/issues we had with the specification: 1) Section 9 says that methods MUST produce the same results when submitted on different bindings to the same resource. I disagree, if you issue a PROPFIND request on /coll1/bar the href returned would be /coll1/bar, if you issue the same PROPFIND request on /coll2/bar (which is bound to the same resource) the href returned would be /coll2/bar. The responses would not be the same. I am sure there could be other examples of this. 2) We found the definition of the DAV:bindings property in section 13.1 very confusing. It would be good to show an example of this property, an interesting example would be the DAV:bindings on resource R2 from Figure 1. I will send a separate e-mail on this issue. 3) Section 15 describes capability discovery and shows the use of a header called Public. I cannot find a definition of this header in RFC2518 or RFC2616 (there is a Cache-Control public directive but no Public header). In what specification is this header defined? Maybe I just missed it. 4) Also on the subject of section 15, it seems we have many ways of finding out what capabilities a server or a resource has...Allow header, Public header, DAV header, DAV:supported-method-set property (in DeltaV). I find this confusing, and I know in the various WebDAV groups there has been some discussion of these and the differences between them, I think they should be defined clearly and consistently in all the WebDAV related specifications. 5) Section 18 there is a missing space in the last sentence (after the 507 code). 6) Is there anyone looking at how bindings affect the other protocols, for example have we looked at how DeltaV features (like Baseline etc) are affected by bindings? BTW...are there any server vendors out there that implement or are thinking of implementing the BIND method? Similarly are any clients using it? Regards, -- Peter Raymond - MERANT Principal Architect (PVCS) Tel: +44 (0)1727 813362 Fax: +44 (0)1727 869804 mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com WWW: http://www.merant.com
Received on Friday, 30 November 2001 06:43:14 UTC