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

RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.MrIntegrity

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 02:32:35 -0800
Message-ID: <7DE119D3D0E15543874F7561EECBDBED0282B721@BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I hail from the school of hard requirements and the proposed language is
open to too many possible interpretations to be considered "hard". I think
it would be better to specify the explicit conditions given below and then
provide a non-normative explanation of the desired long term behavior.

		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slein, Judith A [mailto:JSlein@crt.xerox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 7:05 PM
> To: 'Yaron Goland'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.MrIntegrity
> 
> 
> A binding is a relation between a segment S in a collection C 
> and a resource
> R, represented C:(S->R).  We are saying that when a server 
> agrees to create
> a binding, it MUST guarantee that the binding will continue 
> to exist until
> one of the following happens:
>  
> DELETE with a Request-URI whose final segment is S and the 
> rest of the URI
> identifies collection C
> MOVE with a Request-URI whose final segment is S and the rest 
> of the URI
> identifies collection C
> BIND with a Destination whose final segment is S and the rest 
> of the URI
> identifies collection C, and Overwrite is T
> DELETE the last binding to collection C
>  
> It is not acceptable for a binding to be destroyed as a side 
> effect of any
> other operation.
>  
> That's it for currently defined methods, I think.  But I also 
> think that we
> do have to rely on a more conceptual definition, however 
> inexact, to convey
> the implications for other methods that might be defined in 
> the future.
>  
> So here's a shot at the conceptual definition:
>  
> If a server allows binding C:(S->R) to be created, it MUST 
> guarantee that
> the resource R will continue to be accessible through the URI mappings
> induced by that binding until it receives an explicit request 
> to destroy the
> binding.  Such a request would have to ask explicitly that 
> some element of
> the relation C:(S->R) be removed, or that the relationship itself be
> removed.  It would have to explicitly request that the last 
> binding to C be
> removed, that the last binding to R be removed, or that the 
> binding C:(S->R)
> be removed from C.
>  
> --Judy
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Goland [mailto:yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 8:49 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.MrIntegrity
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence of the last paragraph of section 4 reads 
> "Implementations
> MUST ensure the integrity of bindings." Similar language is 
> used in the
> second paragraph of section 5.1. However the term "integrity" 
> was never well
> defined inside of the specification. As such it is impossible 
> to comply with
> this requirement in an interoperable way. I would strongly 
> caution against
> attempting to specify the definition for integrity, English 
> is much too
> inexact a language for such an attempt to be successful.
> 
>         As such, I move that both sentences be removed and be 
> replaced with
> a series of statements that define, in exact language, the 
> requirements that
> are to be represented by the term "integrity", each sentence properly
> qualified with a MUST.
> 
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2000 05:33:07 GMT

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