[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@rbii.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:52 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Some comments on the 1.1 draft
>
>
> 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.
Versioning is specified in the WebDAV deltav extension, which has been
submitted to the IESG in October.
And why is the fact that locking is optional a problem? If you hit a server
that doesn't support locking while youre application requires it -- just
don't talk to it. I agree that it would be a shame if major vendors come out
with "WebDAV" servers without locking support (is this the case? IIS and
Apache support it).
> 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
Actually, I'd say the fact that WebDAV uses well-defined HTTP method names
makes it *less* likely that security is compromised (as compared to XML-RPC
or SOAP).
> 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.
I agree. RFC2518 badly needs a review, and I think this is the next work
item for the Working Group.
> ...
>
> 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
> extensible.
Doesn't come extensibility (the ability to marshall "anything") with the
price of being *harder* to control?
(I think we're getting out-of-topic...)
|
