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

Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> --On July 15, 2007 12:21:31 PM +0200 Julian Reschke 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The introduction of new DAV:resourcetypes however has lead to the 
>> introduction of new HTTP methods, with the single purpose of creating 
>> a WebDAV collection with a certain set of properties. I think this is 
>> an extremely bad idea. [...] I'd suggest defining what MKCALENDAR and 
>> MKADDRESSBOOK have in common, and come up with a single solution to 
>> that. For instance, such as MKCOL using a request body that carries a 
>> set of properties, including the WebDAV resource type.
> [...] 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?
I believe that this is a most sensible idea -- the creation of new 
protocol methods to operate on resource types is Really Bad (TM) and 
defining a generic, extensible solution that supports domain specific 
MKxxx behavior is clearly preferred. Extending MKCOL with semantics 
covering the optional inclusion of a request body containing properties 
would seem like a very reasonable starting point in this.

It would further be my preference to see the above specified prior to 
pushing CardDAV along the RFC track.


Regards,
Elias