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

RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft

• To: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <gtn@r...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:27:13 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <E16Gosf-0005GU-00@s...>

> 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...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: embedded html
• Next by Date: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Next by thread: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread