RE: DELETE Semantics in Advanced Collections

> > > Thanks.  Good catch.  We'll fix this definition.
> > I'm not sure he was suggesting a change.  Just making an interesting and
> > humorous comment.
>
> Yes.  In fact, it occurs to me now that the zero-bindings state
> might actually be useful, if you have a document store that lets
> you delete all the bindings to a document (to keep it from being
> accessed via HTTP) but still retain it in the store.  Of course,
> once this is done, there is no way WebDAV can bring it back (since
> it's not accessible via HTTP), so it's out of scope; but we probably
> shouldn't sound like we're forbidding it.

RFC 2396 states that resources are not always network retrievable, and
gives as examples human beings, corporations, and bound books in a
library.  These resources would have zero bindings.

If I, personally, ever had a URI mapping, I think I'd choose DAV:jim :-)

- Jim