- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:01:20 -0400
- To: "Julian Reschke" <nnjulian.reschke___at___gmx.de@smallcue.com>
- Cc: "'Webdav WG'" <nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3c.org@smallcue.com>
On Sunday, 08/17/2003 at 01:03 ZE2, "Julian Reschke" <nnjulian.reschke___at___gmx.de@smallcue.com> wrote: > Hi, > > looking at our recent discussion, I feel that we clearly have a problem with > the usage of DAV:displayname. > > The current situation seems to be: > > 1) Some servers implement DAV:displayname as protected live property that > just reflects the last name segment of the request URI (Microsoft IIS) > > 2) Other servers implement DAV:displayname as dead property that by default > is not set until it get's explicitly set by a client (Apache moddav) I tend to agree with you that among these two choices (2) is superior. But that seems obvious. What's more interesting is whether (3) A server can treat it as a dead property but initialize it to the segment name. My impression is that (2) is still a better approach. Are there issues for mapping this to a file system? J.
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 16:01:32 UTC