Subject: DAV Header and extend

From: Jim Luther <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:07:55 -0700

Back in May 2000, there was a discussion at 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2000AprJun/0005.html> 
of how extend was defined in the DAV header definition:

	DAV = "DAV" ":" "1" ["," "2"] ["," 1#extend]

The consensus of that thread seemed to be that extend should be defined:

	extend = Coded-URL | token

However, the issue is still listed as an open issue.

Why did I bring this up? Because I finally found an Apache 2.0 server I 
could test against to determine why our WebDAV client gave read-only 
access to those servers. The problem was caused by a combination of the 
Coded-URL in the DAV Header from the Apache 2 server and a bug in our 
code that handles DAV headers. To fix this problem, I need to handle the 
DAV header correctly. To handle it correctly, I need extend to be 
defined.

At this point, I guess I'll write my code to handle extend as defined 
above. However, it would be nice if this issue could be closed so that I 
don't have to worry about someone else throwing something new into the 
DAV header in the future that my code can't handle.

- Jim

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:14:58 +0200

Jim,

given the fact that Apache already uses this extension syntax, we're
probably stuck with it.

However, I hereby claim that extending the DAV: header with private
extensions is entirely unnecessary, and that RFC2518bis should discourage
this.

Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim Luther
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: DAV Header and extend
>
>
>