Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
Much like we could've guaranteed questions from our A.D. about date formats [0], I would also expect our A.D. to ask some questions if we reinvent several features already found in WebDAV.
Why? WebDAV reuse isn't currently a required part of what this group is
supposed to be doing. Sure, I might ask questions if it looks like there's
overlap and reuse of existing work might save something,
I just wrote "if we reinvent". If we don't, WebDAV isn't very relevant.
but if it's not a requirement (and it currently isn't) it won't necessarily be a significant issue if reasonable alternatives are described instead.
I guess this policy is why we have things like XCAP (reasonable... but why?). It'll be interesting to see if the protocol can manage its current requirements without running afoul of RFC2616, RFC3986, and BCP56. It's my opinion that it probably will if it isn't WebDAV-compatible, but everyone might decide to look the other way.
Robert Sayre
