draft-reschke-webdav-post-04

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

draft-reschke-webdav-post-04

Cyrus Daboo-2
Hi,
I have heard from some implementors that they would like collection
creation to also be part of this draft. In particular, CalDAV and/or
CardDAV clients creating calendars or address books would prefer to leave
specification of the resource name to the client.

Proposal:

- Add a DAV:add-collection property containing a URI (which must be
different than DAV:add-member)
- A POST on that URI creates a collection within the parent collection,
with a server chosen resource name
- If the POST contains an XML body with DAV:mkcol as the root element, then
that body is interpreted the same way as MKCOL ext.

Comment:
For the Example in section 3.4 it might be better to have the request body
contain text that is different from that in the Slug header to make it
clear where the name the server chose is coming from.

--
Cyrus Daboo


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: draft-reschke-webdav-post-04

Julian Reschke
Cyrus Daboo wrote:

> Hi,
> I have heard from some implementors that they would like collection
> creation to also be part of this draft. In particular, CalDAV and/or
> CardDAV clients creating calendars or address books would prefer to
> leave specification of the resource name to the client.
>
> Proposal:
>
> - Add a DAV:add-collection property containing a URI (which must be
> different than DAV:add-member)
> - A POST on that URI creates a collection within the parent collection,
> with a server chosen resource name
> - If the POST contains an XML body with DAV:mkcol as the root element,
> then that body is interpreted the same way as MKCOL ext.

Sounds good to me. Before I make this change -- the doc already being in
state "publication requested" -- does anybody have a problem with this?
(Note it's totally optional; a server that doesn't want to support this
simply wouldn't expose the property).

> Comment:
> For the Example in section 3.4 it might be better to have the request
> body contain text that is different from that in the Slug header to make
> it clear where the name the server chose is coming from.

Good point. Fixed in
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-post-latest.html>.

Best regards, Julian