WebDAV (was Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
On Thursday 20 December 2001 12:57 pm, Julian Reschke wrote: > I prefer to have layered specifications, and not to specify until the > problem is well understood and enough people are interested. Me too. I think WebDAV is still too shaky to serve as a foundation. > The server would still need to implement resource discovery > (PROPFIND), namespace manipulations (COPY, DELETE, MKCOL). Do you think > that these features are useless without locking? Depending on the application, no. For most/many things though, yes. > They aren't ordered. The spec is unclear on this, and clients certainly can't handle unordered multiple occurrences of the response blocks... though the spec appears to allow this. > > WebDAV interoperability has more to do with the small size of the overall > > community (tribal knowledge) than it does with clarity or correctness of > > specification. > > Yes and no. I agree that RFC2518 needs more work to go into the next stage > in the standardization process, but I doub't you'll find a single person in > the Working Group disagreeing with that. In fact, there's a long list of > known issues which need to be resolved for this next step. I know this... my point is that if you implement according to the specification, you will likely be wrong, or at least not interoperate. That's not useful.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format