- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:46:49 +0200
- To: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
- Cc: "Webdav WG \(E-mail\)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:32 PM > To: Roy T. Fielding > Cc: Webdav WG (E-mail) > Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED > > > Roy Fielding writes: > > In my opinion, WebDAV needs to solve this issue before progressing > > on the standards track. > > I agree. Authoring access to an unprocessed source representation of a > resource has been a WebDAV goal from the very beginning (see > Section 5.5 of > RFC 2291). Removing RFC 2518's mechanism for accomplishing this > doesn't help > reach the goal -- it's just a punt. > > Jason Crawford writes: > > But it's under specified and needs work, no interoperability > > has been determined, and no one has been yelling for it. > > Julian Reschke writes: > > The issue that we have to resolve is that RFC2518 *does* specify > > a property that signals source resources, however the mechanism > > is underspecified, and because of that (and other reasons) we > > don't have interoperable implementations of it. > > In what way(s) is this mechanism underspecified? From my perspective, it > provides sufficient information for an authoring client to discover a URL > where authoring can take place. The main issues are that - the text and examples in the RFC just do not make sense to me (see [1]) - the source property doesn't offer enough information to display information about the *types* of link relations [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001OctDec/0119.html> > I assert that, given a few weeks of coding, we could easily demonstrate at > least two clients and two servers interoperating on this feature as > currently specified. There are no obvious technical impediments > to doing so. Do you have specific servers and clients in mind?
Received on Monday, 13 May 2002 12:47:49 UTC