- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:14:58 +0200
- To: "Jim Luther" <luther.j@apple.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Jim, given the fact that Apache already uses this extension syntax, we're probably stuck with it. However, I hereby claim that extending the DAV: header with private extensions is entirely unnecessary, and that RFC2518bis should discourage this. Julian > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Luther > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:08 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org > Subject: DAV Header and extend > > > > Back in May 2000, there was a discussion at > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2000AprJun/0005.html> > of how extend was defined in the DAV header definition: > > DAV = "DAV" ":" "1" ["," "2"] ["," 1#extend] > > The consensus of that thread seemed to be that extend should be defined: > > extend = Coded-URL | token > > However, the issue is still listed as an open issue. > > Why did I bring this up? Because I finally found an Apache 2.0 server I > could test against to determine why our WebDAV client gave read-only > access to those servers. The problem was caused by a combination of the > Coded-URL in the DAV Header from the Apache 2 server and a bug in our > code that handles DAV headers. To fix this problem, I need to handle the > DAV header correctly. To handle it correctly, I need extend to be > defined. > > At this point, I guess I'll write my code to handle extend as defined > above. However, it would be nice if this issue could be closed so that I > don't have to worry about someone else throwing something new into the > DAV header in the future that my code can't handle. > > - Jim >
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 17:15:27 UTC