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

RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.BindingsProperty

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:38:53 -0800
Message-ID: <7DE119D3D0E15543874F7561EECBDBED02619E2D@BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
One of the big mistakes WebDAV, in my opinion, made was differentiating
between live and dead properties. I think this is a meaningless
differentiation. For example, one can take any property, declare it "alive"
and instantly get around the requirement that dead properties be available
everywhere.

"Maul, I have you now, that is a dead property and therefore must be
available through all bindings!"

"I see you are weak in the ways of WebDAV Qui-Gon, my server is enhanced so
that all properties are treated as alive, therefore I do not have to make
them all available through all bindings!"

"But Maul, No! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...." (or whatever sound one makes when
a light saber is thrust through one's chest)

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@rational.com]
> Sent: Tue, January 18, 2000 8:26 AM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.BindingsProperty
> 
> 
> 
> One possiblity is to say that "all dead properties of a resource must
> be available from all bindings to that resource".  This acknowledges
> that the behavior of live properties can be "special", including
> acting differently at different bindings to that resource.
> 
>    From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
> 
>    Section 11 of the BIND specification defines the 
> dav:bindings property. What
>    is not clear to me from the text in this section is if it 
> is possible to
>    have the dav:bindings property accessible through one 
> binding but not
>    another? 
> 
>    One could imagine that two servers share access to the 
> same disk drive and
>    hence are able to map names to the same "resource" (as 
> they understand the
>    term). In order to keep things consistent both servers 
> agree to record all
>    the names they use to refer to the same resource. However 
> only one of the
>    servers actually supports the BIND method and the 
> dav:bindings property and
>    the other doesn't. I can still do a GET on each server and 
> the result will
>    be from the same resource but only one of the servers will 
> be able to serve
>    up the dav:bindings property. Unfortunately the language 
> in section 11
>    speaks of the dav:bindings property being on a resource so 
> the presumption
>    is that if I can get the dav:bindings property through one 
> binding then I
>    MUST be able to get it through the other. I believe this 
> is too strict a
>    requirement.
> 
>    As such I move that the language in section 11 be 
> clarified so as to specify
>    that the dav:bindings property may not necessarily be 
> available through all
>    bindings on the resource.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 11:39:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:53 GMT