- From: Jack Cleaver <jack@jackpot.uk.net>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 15:01:10 +0100
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Petr Tomasek wrote: > > But every webdav client I've seen REQUIRES the DAV-header to operate > on an URL as on a WebDAV collection. So it means You would > practically disalow any partial (e.g. a read-only) WebDAV > implementation, even if it works correctly and the full-fledged > functionality is not needed at all! I don't see it that way. A partial implementation is one that doesn't implement the spec. A read-only implementation is one that implements the spec, but doesn't permit write operations. There is a variety of reasons why write operations might not be permitted by a compliant server. The client might not have sufficient privileges, or the operation might be permitted at some other location, or the repository might forbid all write operations for whatever reason. Or the server software might *by design* not allow write operations. It seems perfectly reasonable to assert that one supports MKCOL, but to then refuse to perform this operation in every case, giving an appropriate status-code. After all, if one *really* didn't support the operation, then one would return a 501. Supporting an operation doesn't imply performing it when it "should not" be performed. What "should not" means is determined by the implementor. > > So the spec is wrong and insane if it doesn't allow for a partial > implementation. Sorry. This is silly. A partial implementation of a spec is not an implementation at all (unless the spec explicitly provides for optional elements - in which case the implementation is arguably not a partial one). L1 (2518) says you MUST support MKCOL. That implies that a 501 is always an incorrect response from an L1(2518)-compliant server. Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with borrowing those parts of a spec that you need, and ignoring the rest; this will only cause problems if your software is expected to interact with other software that relies on proper compliance with that spec, and furthermore your software claims to be compliant when it isn't. -- Jack.
Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 14:01:47 UTC