| In theory this all sounds fantastic, until you actually get to implement it and see that only a handfull of servers actually managed to implement it correctly. Probably because of its complexity. See also another comment from the Flock author: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Flock/issues/93#issuecomme... >I'd say WebDAV is more mature, it has litmus[1] for testing implementations. Within the first few weeks of writing vdirsyncer's testsuite, I already found a bug in SabreDAV, which is tested with litmus. I tried to raise this hole in their testsuite on their mailing list, but at the time their mailinglist was down. >remoteStorage has as far as I know only one production instance running at 5apps [2]. Yes, that's sad. It has yet to be proven that implementations of remoteStorage will actually become more reliable than the ones for WebDAV, but I'm confident that it's easier to get implementations right with remoteStorage. >The benefits of using the RS protocol are mostly due to the CORS headers (which could be implemented easily for WebDAV) and the use of OAuth/Bearer, for which a PR exists for SabreDAV [3]. SabreDAV implementing it is cool. They're the best FOSS serverside implementation of the -DAV protocols I know. But still: It's all optional. Servers implementing all of this is a luxury. Right now we're in a situation where even the stuff that isn't optional doesn't work. Don't trust anything just because it has been around for a long time. |