- From: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 01:22:31 +0200
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 26.05.2008, at 00:04, Werner Baumann wrote: > So support for MKCOL means the ability to reject every MKCOL-request > with "any valid HTTP code". Well, as I said: "that is just how I read the combination of the specs". My interpretation of "combination" in the given scenario is rooted on the title of RFC 2518: "HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring". HTTP Extension means for me that the RFC _extends_ the HTTP specification, not that it restricts it. If a client is a WebDAV client, it automatically is a full HTTP/1.1 client, hence must support 501 responses. And the other way around. But really, this thread already went too far, points have been exchanged and are archived for further consideration. In the end I'm mostly concerned with real world interoperability, and I think that the important question raised by Julian is still "where does it matter"? (I think) To usefully continue the discussion you must transparently answer the question why, for a client, a readonly WebDAV collection returning 403 is different to a server which has an IP address protection for MKCOL on a collection. Thanks, Helge
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2008 23:23:15 UTC