Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi,
> I have heard from some implementors that they would like collection
> creation to also be part of this draft. In particular, CalDAV and/or
> CardDAV clients creating calendars or address books would prefer to
> leave specification of the resource name to the client.
>
> Proposal:
>
> - Add a DAV:add-collection property containing a URI (which must be
> different than DAV:add-member)
> - A POST on that URI creates a collection within the parent collection,
> with a server chosen resource name
> - If the POST contains an XML body with DAV:mkcol as the root element,
> then that body is interpreted the same way as MKCOL ext.
Sounds good to me. Before I make this change -- the doc already being in
state "publication requested" -- does anybody have a problem with this?
(Note it's totally optional; a server that doesn't want to support this
simply wouldn't expose the property).
> Comment:
> For the Example in section 3.4 it might be better to have the request
> body contain text that is different from that in the Slug header to make
> it clear where the name the server chose is coming from.
Good point. Fixed in
<
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-post-latest.html>.
Best regards, Julian
