RE: Bindings and Redirect Ref. teleconf. Mar. 1, 2000

Why would it have to delete the properties?

Overwrite is defined to "... overwrite the state of a non-null destination
resource ...". It is specified in terms of a COPY/MOVE, and we can state
that for a MKREF, it *only* overwrites the target.

There is no other language that forces us to interpret Overwrite as
"DELETE the resource first [implying the props are deleted]".

I really like Joe's idea.

Cheers,
-g

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Slein, Judith A wrote:
> It's certainly a possibility.
> 
> The only problem I can see with relying on MKREF is that it would not just
> update the target, but would replace the resource with a new resource.
> That's probably harmless if it's an HTTP resource with no properties, but if
> it is a WebDAV resource it might have properties that you would like to
> preserve while updating its target.
> 
> --Judy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Orton [mailto:joe@orton.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 7:05 PM
> To: WebDAV WG
> Subject: Re: Bindings and Redirect Ref. teleconf. Mar. 1, 2000
> 
> 
> > Issue #6: Need to add rationale for why we use relative URLs. Server is
> > required to store it as a relative URL.  Server MUST NOT change the
> relative
> > URL during a MOVE.
> > 
> > Raises the issue of needing separate methods for getting the value of a
> > reference, and modifying the value of a reference.  Tentatively agreed on
> > REFGET, REFSET (but noone likes these too much).
> 
> The original -00 spec allowed MKREF with Overwrite, could this be used
> instead of REFSET?
> 
> joe
> 

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/