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

RE: Issue #4: ref-integrity interoperabilityu

From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:59:34 -0500
Message-ID: <201BB34B3A73D1118C1F00805F1582E801BA4D11@x-wb-0128-nt8.wrc.xerox.com>
To: "Davis, Jim <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, WEBDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I'd like to emphasize again that this choice would make it for all practical
purposes impossible for a client to create a reference except with
Ref-Integrity: do-not-enforce.  The only references that can really be
created would be ones for which the server promises *not* to enforce
referential integrity.  That seems to me unacceptable.  

I would be willing to go along with this *only if* we provide some way for
the client to discover what other values of Ref-Integrity a given server
understands.  We could do that with OPTIONS.  Then, even if the client
doesn't understand what the acceptable values mean, it can just pick an
arbitrary one if it wants referential integrity enforced, assuming that
every value the server advertises will be some flavor of enforcing
referential integrity.  I think the most common case will be that the server
offers only one policy for enforcing referential integrity.

Then we can still hope that in the long run a common set of referential
integrity policies will emerge and be standardized, but in the short run
clients will be able to request referential integrity if they want it.  And
it will be possible for compliant servers to insist on enforcing referential
integrity.

--Judy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 1:07 PM
> To: WEBDAV WG
> Subject: Re: Issue #4: ref-integrity interoperabilityu
> 
> 
> At 10:36 PM 2/21/99 PST, Yaron Goland wrote:
> >(Issue #4) Section 4.3.1 - ... I propose that the 
> Ref-Integrity header
> MUST be included in
> >all requests and that the only defined value be 
> DAV:do-not-enforce. A server
> >receiving this header with an unrecognized value MUST fail 
> the request. 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> No need to repeat his reasoning.
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 26 February 1999 13:55:15 GMT

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