Re: Thoughts on relation to WebDAV

Henrik Holst wrote:
> fre 2008-05-23 klockan 09:50 -0400 skrev Simon Perreault:
>> On Friday 23 May 2008 09:36:46 Henrik Holst wrote:
>>> There is no MUST in RFC4918 for the MKCOL Method so class 1 does not
>>> include MKCOL as far as I can see.
>> Is it intentional? I mean, RFC2518 says "All DAV compliant resources MUST 
>> support the MKCOL method." And advertising class 3 would not imply support 
>> for MKCOL, if I read the definition of class 3 correctly.
>>
> Well that is interesting, class 1 would thus be slightly redefined in
> 4918 and supporting class 3 tells the client that your server follows
> this redefinition I guess.
> 
> Hopefully we can get some info from the people involved with 4918 how
> the ideas where when MKCOL was changed from MUST.

It wasn't intentional. As far as I recall, we lost the first paragraph 
without considering compliance.

In practice I think it doesn't make any difference at all.

If a server vendor can't implement support for creating collections, 
he/she simply won't. A 403 always was possible, RFC4918 now also allows 405.

What difference does this make in practice?

BR, Julian