Re: Thoughts on relation to WebDAV
Petr Tomasek <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.webdav |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> >>If you buy a WebDAV-server from a vendor and later notice it does not > >>support MKCOL. Does it matter whether this is standard compliant? > > > >So how exactly is it an improvement to the client when the server claims > >it can do MKCOL, but always returns 403? That would be compliant with > >RFC2518, but not helpful it all. > > > > It is not an improvement at all. In my opinion it would be fraud. > A server that does not support creation of collections is *not* > compliant with RFC 2518 (and, I hope, with RFC 4918 neither) and must > not send a DAV-header at all. Hiding this none-compliance by misusing > 403 makes things worse. But every webdav client I've seen REQUIRES the DAV-header to operate on an URL as on a WebDAV collection. So it means You would practically disalow any partial (e.g. a read-only) WebDAV implementation, even if it works correctly and the full-fledged functionality is not needed at all! > This does not mean, that it is not allowed to create and use servers and > clients, that do not meet all requirements of the standard (or the > proposed standard), and therefore are not compliant. But these needs to > be documented and server and clients will need out of band information > about their capabilities to be set up properly. There will be no > guarantee for interoperability with other clients or servers. These > cases are outside the spec. So the spec is wrong and insane if it doesn't allow for a partial implementation. Sorry. > Werner -- Petr Tomasek <http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek> Jabber: [email protected] SIP: [email protected]