On 2020-11-11 23:33, miqui wrote:
> >> if you think you found one that's useful
> in your scenario, jut go ahead and use it.
> ...i can just take what the http status stands for, 424 "Failed
> dependency" <--- and ignore the actual WebDav semantics described in the
> WebDav RFC?
it's unfortunate that there was a period when these things were simply
accepted into the registry, instead of making sure that WebDAV didn't do
uch a bad job at registering reusable HTTP parameters. anyway, it's
better these days, but that's a different story.
the proper way would be to update these entries like @jasnell is
currently doing for the SEARCH method:
but i'd say it still would be not-so-terrible to ignore the WebDAV
practices and assume things were defined in a more reusable way.
if anybody is interested in working on a draft to do that cleanup, let
me know. the new HTTP building blocks WG would be a most excellent place
to help with this kind of effort. /cc @darrelmiller