- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:51:41 +0100
- To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Cullen Jennings wrote: > > So the usual IETF thought pattern around profiles is say we have might > have profile A and B. Are their clients that want both? Are there > reasons a server would only support one? How will this negation and if a > server only does A and a client wants B, what will the interoperation be > like? Let's call that profile "filestore". This profile would be a true subset of WebDAV. A server such as Slide (to take a real-world example) might want to advertise "filestore" on some resources (such as in a FS backend), but not others (such as a Tamino XML database). A client that would absolutely need the features defined as part of the "filestore" would simply refuse to interop with some of the resources on the server. IMHO that would still be far better than to forbid servers to implement useful WebDAV stuff on resources like these (because that's what a MUST or even a SHOULD requirement would essentially mean). We also should keep in mind that we're in HTTP's area here, because we're talking about PUT. We simply can't overrule HTTP here. We *can* define a way for servers to advertise that their PUT support fulfills certain requirement, so that clients can find out. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 20:53:02 UTC