- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:21:20 +0100
- To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 2016-11-15 22:07, Ken Murchison wrote: > > > On 11/15/2016 03:59 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2016-11-15 21:56, Ken Murchison wrote: >> >>> Just to clarify, which methods do you think need to have additional >>> references? PROPFIND, REPORT, and PROPPATCH because we alter the >>> responses for return=minimal? Also keep in mind the the server is >>> always free to ignore the preference if it so chooses. >> >> Those, plus MKCOL, right? > > Hmm. I'm not sure we alter anything specified by 4918 or 5689 for > MKCOL. Maybe there is an argument that we alter the MKCALENDAR response. Aren't we altering the response for extended MKCOL? > I do wonder why 5689 isn't listed as a reference for MKCOL since it adds > a request body. Oversight, I would say.
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:22:06 UTC