- From: Michael Wechner <michael.wechner@wyona.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:09:15 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > > Michael Wechner schrieb: >> >> Hi >> >> It's not clear to me how a server can recognize a WebDAV enabled >> client from a GET request and > > It can't. > >> also how the client can communicate the version of WebDAV which the >> client has implemented. > > Same. > > Why would the server care? because the server might be able to handle different versions of WebDAV. I think this makes sense for backward and forward compatibility reasons. Also the server might want to deliver a different response, e.g. if the GET request is being issued from a regular Web-Browser, then the server might respond with a common (X)HTML, but if the GET request is being issued from Cadaver or OpenOffice then the server might respond with an ODT file. > >> I have seen in the spec that one can set the HTTP header parameter >> DAV: 1,.... but it seems to > > No, (in RFC2518) that's a response header. RFC2518bis allows > extensions to use this as a request header, but so far BIND is the > only one using it. ok > >> be that nobody is really doing this, but rather people are using >> reserved ports or URI prefixes as workarounds for >> WebDAV GET requests, but which seems to me leads to a lot of code >> duplication and other issues >> (for instance having to open a specific port within a firewall, etc.). >> >> Any pointer re this problem is very much appreciated. > > I guess you'll need to explain first what the problem is. please see above or let me know if I shall provide other examples why I think it would be good to be able to differentiate between a WebDAV client and whatever. All the best Michi -- Michael Wechner Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org michael.wechner@wyona.com michi@apache.org +41 44 272 91 61
Received on Friday, 30 June 2006 08:09:16 UTC