RE: extending the DAV: HTTP header, was: Issues from Interop/Inte rim WG Meeting

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