- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 21:29:08 +0200
- To: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>
- CC: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Helge Hess wrote: > > On 24.05.2008, at 18:44, Julian Reschke wrote: >> The problem arises when clients use in-band information for the wrong >> purpose; for instance refuse to use PROPFIND, just because OPTIONS >> doesn't return a DAV header. > > > I was wondering about that. I think the issue is that PROPFIND is only > defined by the WebDAV RFC. Just having an Allow: PROPFIND doesn't > necessarily imply that its the PROPFIND method with the payload as > specified in WebDAV? That's a good point, considering the lack of an HTTP method registry. Which, as a matter of fact, is an open issue for HTTPbis. > Hm, maybe we really need WebDAV level -1, which just specifies PROPFIND? > :-) No, discovering Allow: PROPFIND should be sufficient, just as it is for header names and status codes defined in WebDAV (these have IANA registries). > I think it really doesn't matter for interoperability in the real world > though. Right, it doesn't matter in practice (*smiles and ducks*). But as it matters in theory, and we take internet protocols seriously, we'll be adding the missing registry (see <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/72>). BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2008 19:29:49 UTC