Re: [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props

On Dec 2, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> I finally paged in enough context to be able to consider this set of 
>> changes.
>> In particular, the justification, from bug text:
>> <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188>
>> "The difference here is that with the originally proposed extension, 
>> the client
>> can tell whether the server evaluated the extension, while with the 
>> definition
>> in RCF2518bis, it can't (it has no way knowing whether the server 
>> just ignored
>> the extension, or happens to have no dead properties)."
>> That's not quite true, the server MUST support dead-props if it 
>> advertises
>> support for 'bis'.   Besides, a smaller fix could be for the server 
>> to return an
>> extra element saying "no-dead-props".
>
> But if a server implements "bis", it MUST also support lots of other 
> unrelated features. This is a question of granularity, and optimally, 
> we won't need "bis" at all because all the things we add can be 
> discovered individually (such as support for DAV:lockroot, for 
> example).

This isn't my idea of optimality.  Servers should implement all of 
RFC2518bis, not cherry-pick bits and pieces.

Lisa

Received on Sunday, 4 December 2005 17:16:02 UTC