Re: Thoughts on relation to WebDAV

Julian Reschke wrote:
 > Well, sorry. It seems we live in different worlds then.

Agreed, and I'm not sorry.

 > The problem arises when clients use in-band information for the wrong
 > purpose; for instance refuse to use PROPFIND, just because OPTIONS
 > doesn't return a DAV header.

They use the information just for the purpose it is intended for. A 
WebDAV-client checks the DAV-header to see, whether the server is a 
WebDAV-server (at what are the capabilities).

Your idea of partial implementation of WebDAV isn't mentioned in the 
spec and it was probably unknown to the implementers of WebDAV-clients. 
When you come up with a new idea, you will have to ask implementers for 
support.
What you propose is: fool the clients by sending wrong information in 
the DAV-header and then misuse status code 403 to reject what the 
clients can expect to succeed. If this really is done, one element of 
RFC 4918, the DAV-header is rendered useless.

I can see, that you think it useless anyway. But RFC 4918 was released 
just one year ago and you are one of the 4 creators of this document. 
Undermining this specification the way you do, is what does not fit in 
my world and what I call "not taking standards seriously".

Werner