- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:07:23 -0800
- To: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20020208170723.L1205@lyra.org>
mod_dav totally ignores the body of a MOVE or COPY request. So I'm all in favor of removing the whole darned thing :-). Short of that, tossing the keepalive stuff is at least a forward-step. Cheers, -g On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 03:32:37PM -0500, Jason Crawford wrote: > > As per the note below.... again... if anyone has an interest in keeping > KEEPALIVE alive, please speak up. I'll mark it for deletion next weekend > if noone speaks up. > > ------------------------------------------ > Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com > > > > > "Lisa Dusseault" > <lisa@xythos.com> To: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Jason > Crawford/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> > 01/31/2002 01:05 cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> > PM Subject: RE: Issue: IS_HREF_A_CHILD_OF_KEEPALIVE > > > > > > > There is a much deeper issue with keepalive, and that is that no client at > the interop claimed to use the feature. Therefore interoperability has > not > been, and cannot easily be, demonstrated. > > Are there now clients out there that can demonstrate that keepalive works? > Or is it one of those ideas that just isn't useful enough to clients for > them to implement? > > If its not useful enough for clients to implement, then it should be > removed > from WebDAV so the protocol can go to the next phase of standardization. > > Lisa > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stefan Eissing > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 7:50 AM > > To: Jason Crawford; Julian Reschke > > Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Issue: IS_HREF_A_CHILD_OF_KEEPALIVE > > > > > > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford > > > [...] > > > Julian alluded to the possibility of keepalive going away. FWIW... I > > > don't see anything like that listed on the issues list. > > > > The issue is not explicitly on the list, however it is related > > to COPY_LIVE_PROPS. > > The issues I have with keepAlive are > > a) how does the client know which property is live in the first place? > > b) deltaV copy semantics forbid using keepAlive on version properties > > c) If the destination is on another server, WebDAV has no means to > > fulfill keepAlive. It is not possible to know if the remote server > > knows the requested live props. > > d) Is there any server/client using it? (I have not seen any) > > > > I would propose to > > 1) remove keepalive, maybe allow omit > > 2) change default copy behaviour to _not_ copy live properties > > > > //Stefan > > > > > J. > > > > > > ------------------------------ Julian wrote... -------------------- > > > Hi. > > > > > > Currently, RFC2518 says in 12.12.1 [1]: > > > > > > <!ELEMENT keepalive (#PCDATA | href+) > > > > > > > So individual properties are identified by "href" (which doesn't > > > make sense > > > in the general case). > > > > > > So (assuming that propertybehaviour/keepalive isn't dropped > > anyway), this > > > will need to be changed to: > > > > > > <!ELEMENT keepalive (#PCDATA | prop+) > > > > > > > where DAV:prop contains property elements. > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > [1] > <http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#ELEMENT_keepalive> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 20:06:58 UTC