Re: The document's address

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