W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1999

RE: April 27, 1999 Adv. Col. teleconference minutes, dynamic content

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 16:36:56 -0700
To: ccjason@us.ibm.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <000201be94f4$aa9b7b40$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>

> > Judy: Jason proposed collapsing resource and state.  Won't that
> get us what we
> need?
> > Jim W: No, it won't handle dynamic content.  There we need to
> distinguish
> between state
> > and resource.  The resource is the output of the cgi script.
> [Judy: why isn't
> that the
> > representation? What actually is the resource in this case?]
>
> > Geoff: We want PUT at URL 1 to be reflected at URL 2.  For
> static resources,
> the state
> > and representation are both the contents of some file, say, and
> PUT changes
> the content of
> > the file.  For dynamic resources, PUT changes the state (the
> cgi script), and
> so changes the
> > representations it generates.
>
> Is this now considered resolved by all parties?  If someone still
> sees a problemwith my proposal, please speak up.  I'd like to resolve them
PDQ.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what "your proposal" means anymore.
There have been several proposals floating around recently...

But, if your proposal involves modifying the definition of a resource so
that a resource is always the same as the chunk of state it maps to, then I
certainly object, since this is counter to the definition of resource in RFC
2396.

> I also think the CGI/dynamic content topic is interesting and
> I've promised Jim Amsden that I'd bring up some dynamic content issues,
> but I want to make sure we're comfortable with the base concepts that
> we have been discussing before I add more ingredients to the soup.

I do not believe you can develop reasonable base concepts without
considering dynamic content.

- Jim
Received on Sunday, 2 May 1999 19:40:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:49 GMT