- From: Henrik Holst <henrik@witsbits.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:57:23 +0200
- To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
fre 2008-05-23 klockan 09:50 -0400 skrev Simon Perreault: > On Friday 23 May 2008 09:36:46 Henrik Holst wrote: > > There is no MUST in RFC4918 for the MKCOL Method so class 1 does not > > include MKCOL as far as I can see. > > Is it intentional? I mean, RFC2518 says "All DAV compliant resources MUST > support the MKCOL method." And advertising class 3 would not imply support > for MKCOL, if I read the definition of class 3 correctly. > Well that is interesting, class 1 would thus be slightly redefined in 4918 and supporting class 3 tells the client that your server follows this redefinition I guess. Hopefully we can get some info from the people involved with 4918 how the ideas where when MKCOL was changed from MUST. /Henrik Holst
Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 13:58:06 UTC