Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 02:36 pm, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > I have never seen a reasonable way in WebDAV to even specify the
> > legal values for properties (schemas) so extended properties are
> > suspect at best.
> Well, that's missing. Correct. Has it stopped WebDAV's acceptance as an
> authoring protocol? No.
No, but things like the lack of versioning, locking being optional, etc. etc.
etc. make it hard to implement the spec... and hard to implement
a useful *open* system. WebDAV is mostly of value to those that wish to:
a) circumvent firewall issues
b) jump on a bandwagon
I think the *goals* of WebDAV, and even the general approach, to be valuable,
and necessary. I think the spec. needs a lot of work. I can say that having
a) implemented it once, and b) looked at it from an editorial POV.
> > Don't blame the system for your abuses is my recommendation....
> > and if you really can't stomach it, *do something else*.
> I don't agree that WebDAV is abusing port 80 -- it's the IETF approved way
> to extend HTTP 1.1 with authoring/locking/discovery.
Sheesh. Has the IETF suddenly become holy? The IETF is about rough consensus
and running code, not about perfect systems. WebDAV is an approach that has,
through various mechanisms, achieved a degree of consensus.
A lot of people, even in the IETF, feel that adding methods to HTTP is much
better done in something like SOAP... which of course WebDAV can be designed
in terms of. I would argue that SOAP might be *better* because at least it's