Cyrus Daboo | 6 Nov 02:50 2009

draft-reschke-webdav-post-04

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

_______________________________________________
ietf-caldav mailing list -- ietf-caldav <at> osafoundation.org
See http://ietf.webdav.org/caldav/ for more CalDAV resources
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-caldav

Julian Reschke | 10 Nov 15:21 2009
Picon
Picon

Re: draft-reschke-webdav-post-04

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
(Continue reading)


Gmane