- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:08:15 +0100
- To: werner.donne@re.be
- CC: Jay Daley <jay@nominet.org.uk>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Werner Donné schrieb: >> 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? > > No, of course not. The scheme tells you you can rely on all the > mandatory features of the WebDAV protocol, which allows you to > switch to another protocol handler without the extra round-trip > to find that out. A server that does only support PROPFIND and fails all other WebDAV requests with not authorized could be compliant (it may support those methods at a different point of time, or for different users). Furthermore: DAV level 1 or 2? I think the important point is that having different protocol handlers may be the wrong way to approach that problem. > .. >> That's why the newer WebDAV specs provide DAV:error. And again, how >> would a different URI scheme help here? > > The DAV:error just gives you a report about the point of failure. > It is not necessarily the case that the action of the user is > directly related to that point. He could have launched a procedure > which comprise much more than what you would typically expect > behind a link in a browser. Again: how would a different URI scheme help here? Concrete example, please? > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 11:08:29 UTC