Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

Cullen Jennings wrote:

> Ok, so what is your advice to client implementers? Do you want to specify
> something they can count on working? XML works? 7 bit ascii works? XHTML
> works? Getting a 415 might tell you the end user why it failed (though
> probably not given most client software) but it is not going to make it
> work. 
> 
> If people are comfortable with there is no guarantee that even the most
> trivial things will interoperate with this protocol, I'm not pushing it. I'm
> just a checking that I correctly understand this as I find it slightly
> surprising. 

Please do not forget telling people what the alternative is. For 
instance, that you can't use a Microsoft WebFolder client for uploading 
to or namespace operations on your server, just because it happens to be 
   a special type of server.

For instance, would you rule out flickr.com allowing renaming (MOVE), 
metadata administration (PROPFIND/PROPPATCH) or uploading (PUT) using an 
off-the-shelf WebDAV client, just because it won't be able to work with 
anything except image files?

That's what making support for arbitrary content required would mean, 
and server implementors would only have the choice to remove WebDAV 
support, or to break the spec.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 08:04:15 UTC