Re: Thoughts on relation to WebDAV

Helge Hess wrote:
> 
> On 24.05.2008, at 18:44, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> I was wondering about that. I think the issue is that PROPFIND is only 
> defined by the WebDAV RFC. Just having an Allow: PROPFIND doesn't 
> necessarily imply that its the PROPFIND method with the payload as 
> specified in WebDAV?

That's a good point, considering the lack of an HTTP method registry.

Which, as a matter of fact, is an open issue for HTTPbis.

> Hm, maybe we really need WebDAV level -1, which just specifies PROPFIND? 
> :-)

No, discovering Allow: PROPFIND should be sufficient, just as it is for 
header names and status codes defined in WebDAV (these have IANA 
registries).

> I think it really doesn't matter for interoperability in the real world 
> though.

Right, it doesn't matter in practice (*smiles and ducks*).

But as it matters in theory, and we take internet protocols seriously, 
we'll be adding the missing registry (see 
<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/72>).

BR, Julian