Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-webdav-post-02.txt

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I have no problem with this draft and with the element names in the 
> "DAV:" namespace.  Depending on what status the community has consensus 
> for, we could either do it as Proposed Standard, or as Informational (or 
> I suppose Experimental) with specific mention of the use of the "DAV:" 
> namespace.

I'm happy with Experimental; but if other specs on the Standards Track 
want to use it we'll have to progress it to Proposed anyway.

So I'll wait for some more feedback, and then submit something 
reflecting that at the end of this week.

> It now seems we're working towards a major update of WebDAV with a bunch 
> of features we may want to push into the core requirements.  Not 
> necessarily next year or the year after, just something to start 
> thinking about once we've had experience with things like MKCOL bodies 
> and POST to create.  I've also had pings recently about property 
> synchronization and collection synch tags.
> 
> Lisa

Indeed. Maybe we need WebDAVbis at some point in the future.

More ideas:

- extract REPORT method and some of the discovery mechanisms out of 
RFC3253 for easier re-use

- revise ACL

- augment safe methods such as PROPFIND, REPORT and SEARCH with GETable 
representations (allowing simple addressing, caching and conditional 
requests)

- do some work on mapping JCR (Java Content Repository) features onto 
WebDAV, such as multivalued properties (currently lacking in RFC 4316) 
and resource types (aka node types in JCR)

- look into peaceful co-existence with AtomPub (:-)

BR, Julian

Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 17:35:48 UTC