On 04.11.2018 18:57, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Guten Tag Branko Čibej, > am Sonntag, 4. November 2018 um 17:47 schrieben Sie: > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "handles more than only DAV successfully" > I thought it might be possible that GitHub answers differently but > properly, because the other check mentioned something about HTTP v2. > Because of TLS, I was unable to look at the requests and responses > then, but it's like you said, they don't provide DAV-headers in their > response to OPTION. > >> And yes, the HTTP/DAV specification requires that header to be present >> in the response. > Which you didn't care about before and things worked for some years > for some users.
We made this change because users complained about unhelpful error messages when they tried to connect to a server that did not even implement HTTP/DAV. The error message was "Malformed XML in response" which wasn't exactly helpful for diagnosing the problem. I admit I didn't have GitHub in mind when I added this check. ... > Now "we" need to get GitHub to change their > implementation and I didn't even get an automatic bot-reply to my > question on Friday yet. :-) Lets see how things are going after I send > them this thread... I keep wondering why the GitHub staff didn't contact us when they implemented their SVN-like server. This might all have been avoided if they had. We already spent time trying to work around GitHub's faulty implementation (q.v. r1707164), but there's a limit to how much we can or should do. The protocols in question are quite well documented after all, both in RFCs and in our own notes. -- Brane