W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2000

WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.ApplePieToo

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:27:55 -0800
Message-ID: <7DE119D3D0E15543874F7561EECBDBED02619E1D@BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Section 9 of the draft attempts to tackle the problem of how to
differentiate the behavior of a resource based on its bindings. It attempts
to discuss the difference between a static and non-static resource. However
the difference between these two types of resources is so unbelievably
arbitrary that I fail to see how attempting to differentiate between them
enhances interoperability.

For example, let us pretend we have the CurrentURI property. The value of
the property will be the Request-URI of the PROPFIND method used to retrieve
the value of the CurrentURI property. Now let us pretend we have two
servers, A and B. A runs a version of WebDAV that automatically generates
the CurrentURI property on top of whatever resources it supports. What this
means is that even if the underlying data store where the resource is
recorded doesn't know about the CurrentURI property, I can still get the
CurrentURI property through PROPFIND because A's server will intercept the
PROPFIND and insert the data itself. Server B doesn't support CurrentURI at
all. I now have a resource R that has bindings into A and B. This means that
if I ask for the CurrentURI property through the binding on A, I will get a
result with the URI on A. If I ask for the CurrentURI property through the
binding on B, I will not even see the property at all.

So the question is - Well is this a dynamic resource? Is it not? Can I have
the same resourceID on both URIs in this example? How does the language in
section 9 help me deal with this? Does it actually clarify anything in a
useful way?

As far as I can tell the language in section 9 is just motherhood and apple
pie language and that always makes for bad standard language.

Therefore I move that all the paragraphs in section 9 but the first
paragraph be stricken from the BIND spec.
Received on Sunday, 16 January 2000 20:28:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:21 UTC