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. 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 On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote: > > Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > >> >> I support this draft, and believe the element names should be added into >> the DAV: namespace. >> > > Yes, I hear that a lot. It would be good to hear the Apps Area Director's > opinion, though... > > I suggest removing the section that talks about the HTTP Link header, to >> remove this dependency (or at least, marking it somehow as "to be removed by >> editor if the HTTP Link I-D is not ready"). >> > > I've rearranged it so it's clear it's optional (< > http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-post-latest.html>). > > Funny enough, in the meantime the Link header was updated as well, so maybe > we can just leave things in. > > BR, Julian > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 04:11:09 UTC