- From: Michael Wechner <michael.wechner@wyona.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:55:22 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > Michael Wechner schrieb: >>> 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. > > Well, so far there are no different versions, so the server doesn't > need to know. but I guess there will be someday ;-) > > If a spec revision or an extension should introduce a change where the > server does need to know, the client *then* can send the DAV request > header, as defined in > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.html#dav-header>. > ok. Do you know by any chance why BIND in particular is using this header? > >> 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. > > Well, that's what the HTTP "Accept" request header is for. right, this might makes sense for formats. But I would argue with another usecase, namely Custom Authentication instead of HTTP authentication (BASIC or DIGEST). Let's assume a resource is protected and a server would like to offer custom authentication, e.g. it would send a HTML to a regular browser and some WebDAV specific XML to a WebDAV enabled client, whereas I haven't digged into WebDAV far enough how something like this could be handled by the WebDAV spec. All the best Michi > > > ... > > Best regards, Julian > -- 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 13:55:15 UTC