- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:07:33 PDT
- To: "Yaron Goland" <yarong@microsoft.com>, <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "Howard Modell" <howard.s.modell@boeing.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Yaron and Jim seem to disagree on the nature of the requirement, so it sounds like this needs to get worked out. > Actually no, http://foo/bar does NOT have to be a collection just because > http://foo/bar/blah is a collection. The requirement reads as: > > IF http://foo/bar is DAV compliant and > IF http://foo/bar/blah/ exists and is DAV compliant > THEN http://foo/bar must be a collection. Must the intermediaries also be DAV compliant? Well, for one level it doesn't matter, but suppose: 1) http://foo/bar is DAV compliant 2) http://foo/bar/a/b/c/blah/ exists and is DAV compliant 3) then must http://foo/bar/a/b be a (DAV-compliant) collection? This would leave out the possibility that http://foo/bar/a might be some kind of mapping? Or is it that "exists" needs elaboration to except that case where it's a redirection?
Received on Saturday, 12 September 1998 02:07:37 UTC