- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:27:30 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, "Mr. Demeanour" <mrdemeanour@jackpot.uk.net>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, ietf-carddav@osafoundation.org
On Jul 16, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> > > Now wouldn't it be nice if a client could check for changed > resources *and* get their content in a single request? That seems > to be something obvious missing from the multiget report. I've worked on some synch stuff and it would be even nicer to make replication general, not specific to CalDAV. So I agree, and I'm happy Cyrus is doing some work on that. > >> Why not put the content or data in the body of the resource? For >> calendaring, that's the entire iCalendar object, even though some >> of the iCalendar insides are structured that doesn't mean they're >> metadata -- they *are* the data. Non-Calendar stuff like ETag is >> true metadata. It's a confusion in terminology (that WebDAV uses >> "property" for metadata while iCalendar uses "property" for >> structured data) that continually tempts us to use WebDAV metadata >> storage, instead of data storage, for iCalendar data. > > I totally agree that the specs should treat calendar/address book > objects as proper HTTP resources. What I was mainly complaining > about was that the content (or parts of the content) are treated as > "pseudo-properties" for some reports, instead of making them proper > (computed) properties (or to change the marshalling in the report > so that no pseudo-properties are introduced). > > Everytime a spec defines a new name for a pseudo property (to be > used where otherwise property names are allowed), that name becomes > unusable for a true property anyway, so there's really no point at > all not to expose that information in PROPFIND as well. Fewer > special cases, please. Fair enough. > >> We still don't have the ability to synchronize property values in >> WebDAV. We could start designing that, but there's not a strong >> call to, unless we start getting confused and put data into the >> metadata. > > That's a separate issue that should be solved. As a matter of fact, > I think I've got a good idea to address this and other related > things, but I didn't have time so far to write it down (famous last > words, I know). Sounds intriguing. Lisa
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 17:27:42 UTC