Unico Hommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido Casper wrote: <snip/>
>> I think this could be changed. However if we want the davmap to be a >> widely interoperable WebDAV server, I think we should have something >> like a compatibility test suite - similar to Slide's TProcessor or >> litmus >> http://www.webdav.org/neon/litmus/ >> that could easily be run after each such change. >> > > Testing software could be very useful for us indeed. > > Should we strive for strict compatibility in the short term? My own > angle towards this is to pick out those WebDAV features that are most > useful and to make them work on the subset of clients that we're most > likely to use. > > Instead of striving for compliance we could also opt to add features > as the need arises, off course trying to stay as closely to the spec > as we can. +1 That's why I don't want to simply adapt one of the 2 above mentioned options. Guido remembering Greg Stein saying: "You don't want to implement the complete DeltaV unless you have a suicide tendency." (don't nail me down on the exact wording :-)
