RE: Do states in a No-tag-list production apply to the parent?

The scoping of a method is, according to HTTP/1.1, based on the request-URI.
DAV extended this with the depth head to include children. In neither case
is the parent of the request-URI involved. Since your example executes on R,
not C, then C is not within the method scope even though C's state may be
relevant to the ultimate outcome.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 3:46 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Do states in a No-tag-list production apply to the parent?
> 
> 
> I would like some clarification on the question of whether 
> the state token
> in a a no tag list production is to be applied to the parent 
> collection of
> a resource.
> 
> In my opinion, it should not apply.  
> 
> The spec leaves some room for interpretation on this 
> question, which is why
> I ask.
> 
> 9.4.1 says
>    If a method, due to the presence of a Depth or Destination header,
>    is applied to multiple resources then the No-tag-list production
>    MUST be applied to each resource the method is applied to.
> 
> To elaborate on why this is a problem.  Suppose I have 
> collection C which
> contains resource R. I lock resource R, obtaining token T, 
> then I try to
> DELETE R, passing token T in a no-tag-list production.\
> 
> Since I am deleting a member from C, the state of C is 
> relevant to this
> method, and must be checked.  (For example, if C were locked 
> by some second
> lock, the method would fail.)  But since the lock is on R, not C, C is
> *not* in the state T.  If the no-tag-list production were 
> applied to C (as
> the parent of R) it would fail.  This seems undesirable.
> 
> Maybe this is what 9.4.1 is *trying* to say, but it is not 
> clear.  It tells
> me what resources the production MUST be applied to, but does 
> not tell me
> which ones it MUST NOT be applied to, ie. the parent.  Is the 
> DELETE method
> "applied to" the parent?  It affects the parent, but is it 
> "applied to" it?
> 
> I would like a clearer statement in the spec.
> 
> It seems to me that it should NOT be applied to the parent, because
> 
>  1) if it is, then there's no way to delete a collection that 
> is locked.
> You have to use the no-tag production in this case, and as I 
> show above,
> this can't work.
> 
>  2) there is also no need for it.  If you need to pass a 
> token for a lock
> on the parent, you can pass it using the tagged production.  
> After all, you
> really only need the no-tag prod when the method applies to a set of
> resources ie when  operating recursively on a collection. 
> 
> Any objections to this interpretation?
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 December 1998 18:29:18 UTC