


From: Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:43:46 +0100
Message-ID: <47406BC2.3020009@onlinehome.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

MKCOL for non-collections?
MKCOL should not create anything but collections. These may be special 
strike back some day.

be called MKCOL, maybe MKRES.

Setting properties:
properties is already in RFC 4918.

cases, multistatus and response should do the job.

Special collections:
Special collections will be defined by an additional resourcetype 
property. As this collection may be expected to behave different from 
standard collections, it is essential that the server knows about this 

I can see, they just contain properties.

When considering the inclusion of an XML-body in MCOL, I also would 
prefer to make this more generic and include other methods, including 
PUT as well.
Additionally, why only set properties. It would be nice, if a 
LOCK-request could be included too. This would not only save one 
round-trip (not such important), but avoid race conditions. But allowing 
a LOCK-request in the XML-body would require a new container-element for 
the request-body. It should be something generic, like a "request"-element.


P.S: "displayname"
This example from the draft is how not to use it:
          <D:displayname>Special Resource</D:displayname>
Why repeat the value of another property. But displayname is useless 
anyway. Never heard of another "name", that must *not* be used for 
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2007 16:44:14 GMT
