W3C TAG

Ka-Ping Yee ping@lfw.org
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:32:16 -0600 (CST)


On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> Hey, is it beat up on W3C week?!

Not at all.

I merely found Jim's suggestion a bit much: the suggestion that i was
somehow irresponsible as an open source developer for not having built
Crit on WebDAV.  One could perhaps make that argument for a new project,
starting today after the establishment of WebDAV, and even that would
be a stretch.  But Crit came much earlier.

It seems to me that the claim that WebDAV should have been designed
around Crit is no more absurd than the claim that i should be somehow
required to implement Crit around WebDAV.  (You are certainly welcome
to take the position that both are absurd.)

Then again, since Crit *is* open source, there's no need to get me to
do it.  WebDAV fans are welcome to add that support themselves. :)

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> > That said, I think comparing WebDAV to filesystem(protocols) is
> > off the mark?
> > Do you agree or disagree? Is making WebDAV a filesystem a goal?
>
> But, since many people are using WebDAV as a network filesystem protocol,
> and appear to be solving real-world problems by doing so, it begs multiple
> questions:
> (a) how different is DAV from existing network file system protocols
> (b) how might DAV be modified to better accommodate those clients that use
> it as a network file system protocol

Exactly.  I raised the initial question here not because i thought
NFS and DAV were direct competitors, but because i thought it was
worth eliciting and discussing the answers to these questions. [1]



-- ?!ng


[1] ...which, by the way, are not "begged", as there is no circular
reasoning going on here.  <casting a stern glance at Jim>  :)