In general, I like the idea of shipping the webdav plugin.
Wouldn't it make sense to merge some (all?) of this code into the HTTP implementation? I don't see a particular reason why WebDAV support couldn't be in the default HTTP implementation. At the very least it will mean people no longer see a mkdir() not implemented error when they try to write over HTTP but instead a "remote server doesn't support MKDIR" error.
That said, I don't think this integration should be a blocker for merging the webdav plugin into core. Let's move it one step at a time. :-)
In general, I like the idea of shipping the webdav plugin.
Wouldn't it make sense to merge some (all?) of this code into the HTTP implementation? I don't see a particular reason why WebDAV support couldn't be in the default HTTP implementation. At the very least it will mean people no longer see a mkdir() not implemented error when they try to write over HTTP but instead a "remote server doesn't support MKDIR" error.
That said, I don't think this integration should be a blocker for merging the webdav plugin into core. Let's move it one step at a time. :-)