Re: [Ietf-carddav] Comments on draft-daboo-carddav-02

Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> 
> However, I do agree that this is not an ideal state of affairs. If
> there is consensus in the WebDAV community to do so, I agree that we
> should write up a formal extension to MKCOL that would cover all the
> other MKxxx's behaviors. However, I do not believe that belongs in
> CardDAV, it should be a separate extension that CardDAV can itself
> leverage. I would be happy to put a spec together on that (extracting
> the behaviors from the existing specs).
> 
> What do others thinks about this?

Strongly in favour - and I agree with you that it should be separate
from the CardDAV spec.

But that doesn't force you to adopt the MKADDRESSBOOK route in the
meantime, does it?
> 
> 2) multiget allows both the data and properties to be returned in one
>  go: i.e. it is the equivalent of a GET and a PROPFIND.

Not really; the CalDAV multiget requires the server to parse the
resource body, because the client can ask for selected iCalendar
properties. ASs it happens, I think that was a rotten idea, and multiget
would be better-off without that feature.


-- 
Jack.