- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:49:58 -0400
- To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
I agree with both of Julian's points. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:51 AM To: Lisa Dusseault; Webdav WG Subject: extending the DAV: HTTP header, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 8:14 PM > To: Webdav WG > Subject: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > ... > > - Add a new string in DAV: header to advertise support for RFC2518 bis > > - Change the DAV: header BNF to allow coded URLs syntactically. > > ... Questions: 1) I thought that the goal for RFC2518bis is to clarify and to simply the protocol, not to extend it. Why do we need a new compliance class then? And what does it mean for an existing server? For instance, if the server only implements the "simplified" form of LOCK-NULL resources, is it allowed to advertise compliance class "2". IMHO, it should (otherwise interoperability with old clients may break), so why a new class then? 2) If the spec extends how compliance classes are defined, I'd like to see a use case first. Note that advertising support for a specific live property IMHO is not a valid use case, so servers doing this should be fixed (there's a better way to do it, which is adding the property to the set reported in DAV:supported-live-property-set as defined in RFC3253). Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 10:12:35 UTC