On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 04:28:38PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Based on my interpretation of the RFC, I think this might be > a better way to handle the body case for MKCOL. I sort of > think this is what they were thinking rather than relying > on the request entity headers. > > Thoughts? -- justin
Hmm. I can see where you're coming from, but am worried that some clients might set a Content-Type even though they don't send content. (e.g. a zero length body of <x> type) How about adding this to STATUS, and collecting in there the clients that have been verified? (e.g. WebFolders, cadaver, Neon clients, etc) Once it appears that most clients are /not/ sending Content-Type on a MKCOL, then yes: let's get it integrated. I've always hated that code :-) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
