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

Stefan Eissing wrote:
> 
> Am 16.07.2007 um 16:57 schrieb Julian Reschke:
>>> 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).
>>
>> I think that would be great. I think all we need is a request body 
>> (XML + mime type) that will allow to specify a set of WebDAV 
>> properties, including the resource type.
> 
> Maybe send a POST + request body to the parent collection?
> 
> POST seems to have been avoided by WebDAV to not interfere with webapps 
> using the same URIs. But those days are over.

That could work as well, but I don't see why we shouldn't use MKCOL when 
we're actually creating a collection.

Best regards, Julian

PS: I'm still not convinced that ADDMEMBER (with precise semantics as 
opposed to POST) isn't needed in HTTP -- see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-addmember-00.html>.