Re: Do server store arbitrary content

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> Perhaps we should set a precedent for content-limited servers not to 
> advertise themselves as being fully functional WebDAV servers.   That 
> would go for those CalDAV servers that can't handle non-event data in 
> calendars too, at least that restriction could be advertised on those 
> types of collections.  There are probably a couple other restrictions I 
> would consider major hurdles for clients expecting to "do their WebDAV 
> thing" -- possibly some of the weak or no ETag cases or wierd 
> creationdate cases we've discussed before.

I note that we seem to converge on this being something that clients 
should be able to discover.

The question remains whether this is something RFC2518 allows today (my 
position). In this case, new requirements should be explicitly spelled 
out (Etags types, Etag returned upon PUT?, binary content allowed?, 
...?) and given a name (potentially a discoverable compliance class).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 22:24:34 UTC