RE: [SPAM] Re: [xml-dev] RESTful operations on document fragments'

["Moberg Dale" <dmoberg@axway.com>]

Moberg Dale wrote:
> Would someone comment on why WEBDAV approaches are not being
considered
> in this thread? 

Personally, I think WEBDAV and REST are two rather different approaches.

  I'm not likely to be working in a WEBDAV-supporting framework in any
case.

> A discussion of what I would take to be a RESTful approach to HTTP
> extensions begins at
> 
>
http://www.webdav.org/specs/rfc2518.html#http.methods.for.distributed.au
thoring

Simon St Laurent comments:

That's RESTful?  For what definition of REST?

Moberg Dale continues in reply:

I will ignore the bait about "definitions". I can only point out that in
the REST vs. XMLP wars, REST advocates defended the MTTP methods (POST,
PUT, GET and the like) as indicating ("properly") the RESTful operations
on the resource indicated in the HTTP command line. In WEBDAV we find
HTTP extended, for example, by

   PROPFIND  /file HTTP/1.1
   Host: www.foo.bar
   Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
   Content-Length: xxxx

That is, new HTTP methods were introduced. The introduction of new HTTP
methods was discussed in this thread previously. What definition was at
work for those who introduced those points into the discussion?

Anyway, some sort of WEBDAV lite seems to be what is being envisioned. I
was just wondering about why reinvention was of interest. I remain
unclear why you want to reinvent, but I am not discouraging you.