WebDAV is actually fine for this use case and supported everywhere (e.g. you can enable WebDAV for a certain directory in Apache, map it as a network drive in Windows, and everything will just work).
But tbh, it’s underrated because of the crappy Windows implementation causing explorer to hang as soon as a fly causes interference.
It’s sad because WebDAV could have been (with some added ergonomics) the missing link between the filesystem-desktop metaphor and the cloud apps.
However, the HTTP directory listing specification that I made has been described as being like a simpler and better (in some ways) version of WebDAV by some of the other people who have seen it. (It does do a few more things than only directory listings, but directory listings is its main intention.)
Sounds good. Where is such program? This is surely not a very novel idea, but where is it?
Hint:
- remote file systems suck. see: sshfs
- the feature set you think are important are maybe not important enough to that many people
Every office in the nineties. Windows 95 + Office on the desktop and a Windows NT Server sharing the files. I'm not saying we should try and wind the clock back but it was a solved problem.
Maybe, maybe not, but even then, wouldn’t implementing those be easier (for both you and the rest of the world) than creating a completely new protocol?
> It still leaves the issue of it using multiple ports.
Aren’t multiple ports only an “issue” if you assume NAT (and CGNAT, shudder) as a natural state of things?
Maybe. One the other hand, WebDav and SFTP may be more widely supported than those extensions already.
>Aren’t multiple ports only an “issue” if you assume NAT (and CGNAT, shudder) as a natural state of things?
NAT is unfortunately something ubiquitous. And the multiple ports makes FTP harder to tunnel.
FTP is no good. There are better protocols, such as HTTP, Gopher, Gemini, Plan9, etc. I had made up a file format for serving directory listings by HTTP (but I don't know how to configure Apache, or to write an extension for Apache, to be able to use it).
About "who think the browser should be for browsing documents and not virtualizing apps", it is badly designed for virtualizing apps. (I have thought of some better ways.)
Also, the file system paradigm does not fail with shared content; you could have the program to mount a remote file system and then access it using local programs, if wanted. (You can then also easily to copy files between your computer and remotely, in this way, by using the standard operating system commands for doing so, and will work just as well with command-line or GUI. Similarly, for SQL databases, you can have an extension to expose remote data as a virtual table, and you can then easily copy data between locally and remotely.)