W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: HTTP URI scheme

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:46:06 +0100
Message-ID: <45A758DE.4040206@gmx.de>
To: werner.donne@re.be
CC: Jay Daley <jay@nominet.org.uk>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Werner Donné schrieb:
> Hi,
> Implementing an efficient client is a challenge if you have to
> discover the capabilities at run-time. Either you end up with

Where exactly would a "webdav" scheme help here? Can you give a 
definition what information it would provide? Would I be allowed to use 
it for resources that just support PROPFIND, for instance?

-> Granularity problem, for once.

> a lot of OPTIONS method calls or a lot of state to avoid them.
> Another alternative is recovery code for failures all over the
> place, because you can't just fail without telling the user
> in a proper way what the problem is, which depends on the
> scenario he is in. "Not implemented" is not good enough when

That's why the newer WebDAV specs provide DAV:error. And again, how 
would a different URI scheme help here?

> it is about something deep inside some logic that the user has
> triggered, because he will not be able to related it to what
> he did.
> Why exactly what Apple did was a mistake?

For once, because they forced new identifiers on the web, without taking 
care of specifying what they mean (or did I miss a scheme registration?).

As far as I can tell, the only way they differ from HTTP URLs is that 
Apple's software uses them to invoke a different user agent. You don't 
need an URI scheme for that, a MIME type works just fine (see, for 
instance, <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4709.html#rfc.section.A.2>).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 09:52:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:41 UTC