W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: Namespace consistency

From: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:45:53 PDT
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980915104553.007d8b30@mailback.parc.xerox.com>
To: "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
At 08:43 PM 9/14/98 PDT, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> Jim Whitehead wrote:
>> > I think we should require all collections below a DAV-compliant
>> >resource to also be DAV-compliant.  So, while it's OK to not be
>> >DAV-compliant looking up a hierarchy tree, looking down the tree from a
>> >DAV-compliant location should always be DAV-compliant. 

Hmm, I he did say all _collections_ below a DAV compliant resource, not all
resources of any kind.   But since 'collection' is a term defined by DAV,
what would it mean to be a 'collection' that is not 'DAV'.  Jim, did you
mean 'resource', or did you mean 'namespace' (in the HTTP sense, not XML).

I was assuming he meant 'namespace'.

On the other hand, what about the stronger claim (that all resources within
a collection must be DAV compliant).  It's not unreasonable.  What does it
mean to do PROPFIND on collection a/b/c, discover that it includes resource
a/b/c/d, but that one can't do PROPFIND on a/b/c/d?

>So a DAV-compliant resource can't be, say, a CGI script?

Of course it can be a CGI script.  That's one reason that DAV has source
links.  What do you see that would prohibit this?

>If I have http://a/b/c/ and I want to add a CGI such that
> http://a/b/c/d is indirectly http://a/b/c/d.cgi, where
>'d.cgi' computes a query, you might have http://a/b/c/d?e .
>Now, is http://a/b/c/d.cgi a 'member' of http://a/b/c/ ?

I don't understand what you mean by 'indirectly' enough to speak to that,
but if a PROPFIND on http://a/b/c/d includes http://a/b/c/d.cgi, then 
d.cgi is a member of a/b/c.  Otherwise, not, because there is no other DAV
way to traverse the URL namespace except by issuing PROPFINDs.  
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 1998 13:52:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:47 GMT