W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: The document's address

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:15:32 +0100
Message-ID: <513A0EA4.7040800@gmx.de>
To: Nicholas Shanks <nickshanks@gmail.com>
CC: IETF HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-03-08 17:10, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
> On 8 March 2013 15:42, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> That implies a concept of hierarchical ownership that simply does not exist
>> in HTTP. It might for some servers, but there's no guarantee.
>
> Can you provide an example (make one up) where ownership cannot be
> defined as hierarchical and accumulative?

Pretty much any server that is backed by a content management system 
where ACLs can be set on individual resources.

> I am suggesting that HTTP's concept of "ownership" (for purposes of
> replacing cache entries) be defined by the specs to be hierarchical,
> since if I own / and I want to sabotage /subdir/ all I have to do is
> log in to the server and replace/delete it.

How is that relevant? Me confused.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 16:16:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 16:16:17 GMT