[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft

iis deltav
> From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:52 PM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Some comments on the 1.1 draft
> On Wednesday 19 December 2001 02:36 pm, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > I have never seen a reasonable way in WebDAV to even specify the
> > > legal values for properties (schemas) so extended properties are
> > > suspect at best.
> >
> > Well, that's missing. Correct. Has it stopped WebDAV's acceptance as an
> > authoring protocol? No.
> No, but things like the lack of versioning, locking being
> optional, etc. etc.

Versioning is specified in the WebDAV deltav extension, which has been
submitted to the IESG in October.

And why is the fact that locking is optional a problem? If you hit a server
that doesn't support locking while youre application requires it -- just
don't talk to it. I agree that it would be a shame if major vendors come out
with "WebDAV" servers without locking support (is this the case? IIS and
Apache support it).

> etc. make it  hard to implement the spec... and  hard to implement
> a useful *open* system. WebDAV is mostly of value to those that wish to:
>   a) circumvent firewall issues

Actually, I'd say the fact that WebDAV uses well-defined HTTP method names
makes it *less* likely that security is compromised (as compared to XML-RPC
or SOAP).

>   b) jump on a bandwagon
> I think the *goals* of WebDAV, and even the general approach, to
> be valuable,
> and necessary. I think the spec. needs a lot of work. I can say
> that having
> a) implemented it once, and b) looked at it from an editorial POV.

I agree. RFC2518 badly needs a review, and I think this is the next work
item for the Working Group.

> ...
> A lot of people, even in the IETF, feel that adding methods to
> HTTP is much
> better done in something like SOAP... which of course WebDAV can
> be designed
> in terms of. I would argue that SOAP might be *better* because at
> least it's
> extensible.

Doesn't come extensibility (the ability to marshall "anything") with the
price of being *harder* to control?

(I think we're getting out-of-topic...)


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.