Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.

On 2009-02-24 19:05, "ext Julian Reschke" <> wrote:

> wrote:
>> ...
>> Perhaps you should split URIQA from PROPFIND since your summary of PROPFIND
>> does not correctly capture its properties, and suggests URIQA is essentially
>> equivalent, which it clearly is not.
>> ...
> I think PROPFIND could be considered a superset, thus the functionality
> provided by MGET could potentially made available using PROPFIND, for
> instance with a new "description" property. (and, of course, MPUT and
> MDELETE could then be mapped to PROPPATCH).
> BR, Julian

Well, as noted before, there is conceptual overlap, but PROPFIND imposes a
lot more overhead and housekeeping requirements on clients, including the
need to submit XML, etc.

I actually see URIQA and WebDAV as complimentary protocols, each optimized
for a particular purpose, but which could certainly share some common
implementation components (let's not confuse protocol with implementation).


Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:44:47 UTC