Subject: Re: rfc2518bis-14: the term 'DAV-compliance'

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:01:21 +0200

Manfred Baedke wrote:
> 
> Well, even if one did that, what is the point of telling the client that 
> the server actually supports a method, only the send FORBIDDEN in every 
> case?

This seems to be a result of spec authors thinking that they have the 
power to coax people to implement something they don't want to. 
Frequently, people just ignore these kinds of requirements. For 
instance, they support PROPFIND and not PROPPATCH. And guess what? 
That's good enough for many clients.

Other implementors are impressed by the spec language, but still can't 
provide that functionality. So they claim they can do PROPPATCH, but 
always return with an error message (harmless). Or they claim to support 
DAV:getcontentlanguage, but always return the same meaningless value 
(Very Bad).

I think I have given up on this one :-)

Best regards, Julian