On Saturday, Nov 1, 2003, at 11:53 Europe/Rome, Guido Casper wrote:
1) is DAV: DAV:1 correct? I would expect "DAV: 1" to be the correct header
Checking the spec at http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/protocol/rfc2518.html#HEADER_DAV
it seems that "DAV: 1" is correct.
ah, ok, but being compliant to the spec doesn't really help if your app doesn't work :-( as IE shows us almost every other second.
2) is our response correct? I think that, from a DAV perspective, "/" is not a page but rather a folder.... even if, to be honest, httpd/unix-directory really sucks as a content type, but anyway.
Yes, mod_dav proved to be quite interoperable. "httpd/unix-directory" is
what our "collection2propfind.xsl" currently delivers as well (as part
of a multi-status response body).
cool
I think this could be changed. However if we want the davmap to be a widely interoperable WebDAV server, I think we should have something like a compatibility test suite - similar to Slide's TProcessor or litmus http://www.webdav.org/neon/litmus/ that could easily be run after each such change.
I would be in favor of this, but might not be enough.
Today, for example, I found out that Cadaver and DAVExplorer don't talk DeltaV to Slide... :-(((( and I can't get Catacomb or Subversion to build on merlino. I'm sooo depressed. :-(
The bleeding edge hurts. painfully.
As for the empty response body. It would be a matter of having a serializer supressing it. However I didn't come accross a WebDAV client not simply ignoring a response body. I assume changing the header to "DAV: 1" solved the problem with WEBDAVFS?
Yes, it did.
BTW, do you know if Cadaver can talk simple DeltaV with subversion?
-- Stefano.
