[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WebDAV properties vs. Atom extension elements


On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:06:35 -0800, Ezra Cooper <ezra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This would require an XML wrapper around templates.

It does? Why can't templates be managed as single, simple resources, directly?

Why does everything have to be wrapped in XML to do something about it? To create a template, you PUT/POST it (depending on who manages the URI space -- the client or server). To update it, you PUT it. To delete it, you DELETE it. To retreive it, you GET it. How much more fancy stuff do you need to do with a template?

Admittedly, this increases the size of template transmissions, but only
by a handful of bytes--and the upside is that we have an easy place to
stick extension XML elements on a template.

What should one do if one whishes to manage images? Wrap that in XML too? I think not. All resources can be managed with PUT, POST, DELETE and GET, as far as I can see. But maybe I'm not seeing far enough. If so, please let me know.

A great weblog-authoring protocol could probably be created using WebDAV as its basic infrastructure: all metadata could be stored in WebDAV properties. But it concerns me that the WG is trying to blend a pure XML approach with a WebDAV approach, effectively doubling the burden on implementors (client and server) without much gain.

I agree that going down the WebDAV path isn't necessarily the correct way. But wrapping everything in XML isn't necessarily either. I think we need to find a compromise between the two. What that compromise is, is yet to be defined.

To put it concisely, I want it to be the case that WebDAV is not required for Atom.

I agree with this statement.

It's already been agreed that WebDAV should not be required for core
Atom capabilities. Can we improve that and say that WebDAV is not
required for core Atom, and not for Atom extensions either?

That probably depends on the extensions. If someone wants to extend Atom with WebDAV-like features, I don't think it's our business to stand in the way. However, I agree that the most basic functionality should not require more than basic HTTP support (which really is asking much!) and perhaps an XML library available on the server.

The funny thing is that if WebDAV were only more fine-grained, Atom could be a fully compliant WebDAV profiled protocol, with only supporting the four basic HTTP verbs. But IIRC, the most basic WebDAV profile requires property support as well (PROPPATCH and PROPFIND). Disclaimer: I'm no WebDAV expert (at all), so please just slap me if I'm wrong.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»