Subject: New draft: draft-daboo-webdav-mkcol-00.txt

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:58:11 -0500

Hi folks,
I have posted the following draft:

    A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
    directories.

    	Title           : Extended MKCOL for WebDAV
    	Author(s)       : C. Daboo
    	Filename        : draft-daboo-webdav-mkcol-00.txt
    	Pages           : 16
    	Date            : 2007-11-12

    This specification extends the WebDAV MKCOL method to allow
    collections and resources of arbitrary resourcetype to be created and
    to allow properties to be set at the same time.

This draft arose from a discussion of the CardDAV spec where it was noted 
we were starting to have too many MKxxx methods, and it would be better to 
define a webdav generic extended MKCOL instead.

Please review and comment, thanks.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: "John Barone" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:47:23 -0800

> With PUT we would need a way to make sure that the recipient does
understand the new MIME> type we defined.

> Instead of overloading PUT, using a body+metadata MIME type with PATCH
might work better.

For the above to work in the use cases we'd care about, you'd also need
to be able to ensure that the PUT and PATCH are transactional
(all-or-nothing); probably not a road we want to go down right now.
However, if you introduced a MKRESOURCE (or some such method), that was
able to create something like a lock-null resource, *and* apply all the
meta-data, all in one shot, and then perform the PUT against it later, I
think that would fit the bill.

-John

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 5:02 AM
To: Cyrus Daboo
Cc: John Barone; WebDAV
Subject: Re: New draft: draft-daboo-webdav-mkcol-00.txt

Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> ...
> With PUT, there is already a body being sent - i.e. the actual data of

> the resource. So there is no place to put the extension data, except 
> for the request header (which would not be ideal). One solution, of 
> course, would be to use a special MIME body with PUT, e.g. a 
> multipart/mixed where the first part is application/webdav+properties,

> and the second part is the actual resource body data. Not sure what 
> implication that might have.
> ...

With PUT we would need a way to make sure that the recipient does
understand the new MIME type we defined.

Instead of overloading PUT, using a body+metadata MIME type with PATCH
might work better.

Best regards, Julian