- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:30:40 +0200
- To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Cullen Jennings wrote: > > This document looks grossly under specified. I don't even know what mounting > means. It seems to lack many of the things you would need to make it useful > for mounting and unmounting removable storage. I suspect I don't understand > what the document is about. I would be very against the IETF publishing a > document that someone in the WG could not understand what it did. > > Cullen <not as chair> Cullen, when you say "it seems to lack many of the things you would need to make it useful for mounting and unmounting removable storage", could you please be a bit more specific? WebDAV clients come in many flavors, such as - filesystem drives (Xythos, Microsoft XP-Redirector, Unix/Linux fs drives such as the one in MacOSX) - shell extensions (like Microsoft's Webfolder client) - browser extensions (I think KDE#s webdav "URI" support falls into this category) The aim of this document was to have a platform- and client-agnostic way for a server to let the client's system know that a specific WebDAV URL should be accessed, and that collection itself (or a descendant of it) should be displayed. What may be looking like missing features was a deliberate decision to start with the simplest-possible format that solves the problem. That it *is* a problem IMHO shows that the market already has come up with a set of different approaches (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-mount-latest.html#alternative.approaches>), none of which is portable. Additional information for specific clients (such as a proposed "mount point" for Unix FS clients) can then be added by extending the XML format (potentially using a different namespace). But right now I'd really like to stick with the subset that is relevant for every client. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 17:32:34 UTC