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

RE: Clarification of URI vs. Resource

From: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:29:15 PST
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981113172915.0096a560@mailback.parc.xerox.com>
To: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>, <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "WEBDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
At 03:28 PM 11/13/98 PST, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> It wouldn't mean you couldn't mention URLs, but just that you couldn't say
>> that URLs are members of collections, or design the protocol so that
>> anything depends on URL syntax for figuring out collection 
>> membership.  Now that I sit down to look at it, I see that this
>> would require changes to the protocol, so never mind.  For example,
>> MKCOL now determines the parent collection as well as the name of
>> the new collection from the request-URI. And of course there would
>> have to be a new method for navigating up.
>
>This was the problem the DocuShare group was having in trying to
>implement WebDAV for DocuShare.  The problem is that you can't really
>add these features after the fact as 'optional' components, because
>clients will be released that will ASSUME that the URL syntax determines
>(the possibility of) containment.

Actually, DocuShare would have no problem whatsoever, provided the WebDAV
server supports the advanced collection features that Judy has designed.
Since DocuShare controls the server, they can implement these features, if
they like.  This will suffice.  No client support of any kind is needed.
Even plain HTTP 1.1 clients will work.

One can make many criticisms of WebDAV, but it is false to say that it will
not support document management systems such as DocuShare.

Jim
Received on Friday, 13 November 1998 20:30:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:48 GMT