- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:32:45 -0400
- To: ccjason@us.ibm.com
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: ccjason@us.ibm.com > > or to modify an existing binding (by associating > > it with a different resource). And later Geoff mentioned difference between this and PROPFIND replacing a value of a property. There is a difference. PROPFIND deals with the access control of a single resource or property. The BIND behavior in question deals with two resources I think. It deals with several resources (the advanced collection containing the binding, the original resource being bound, the new resource being bound), but only one resource is being modified (namely, the advanced collection). Imagine a property that contains a URL (i.e. a reference to another resource). You do a PROPPATCH on that property to change the URL (i.e. make it reference a different resource). There are serveral resources involved (the resource containing the property, the resource identified by the original URL, the resource identified by the new URL), but only one resource is being modified, namely, the resource containing the property. I say go with Geoff's proposal and see how messy it gets. If we find we are going to get entangled in access control issues (although probably far fewer than COPY) we can punt. I'm happy with that approach (:-). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Sunday, 2 May 1999 22:32:49 UTC