W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2002

Translate (was RE: DAV-Enabled field (was RE: A case for GETSRC))

From: CJ Holmes <cholmes@4d.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:36:50 -0800
Message-Id: <a0510140ab8a9b19e6830@[]>
To: DAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
>I think "Translate" is much clearer than "DAV-Enabled" because it at least
>it says what you want.

Then let's spec Translate and make it part of DAV.  Interoperable 
implementations exist.

>As I've said numerous times: make up your mind whether the source and it's
>output are the same resource or not. If they are, you can use "Translate".
>If they aren't, they will have different URLs.

They are if the administrator says they are.  Again, that's policy. 
I don't set policy, I just make the tools my users want.

>HTTP takes the position that they are different resources (see introduction
>to "GET"), and I don't see how a different working group could change this

    The GET method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of an
    entity) is identified by the Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers
    to a data-producing process, it is the produced data which shall be
    returned as the entity in the response and not the source text of the
    process, unless that text happens to be the output of the process.

If DAV is responsible for processing GET, and it makes the policy 
decision that the correct output is the the same as the source text 
(and the security sub-system gives the go-ahead) then it should be 
able to return the source text if that's the policy.

>  > I don't see that
>  > it would be so horrible to allow the idea that one of the
>>  representations of a resource could be its raw source.  What
>The most horrible thing being that the source resource doesn't have it's own
>URL and thus cannot be properly referred to using just a URL. Could you
>please explain why you think this particular problem *isn't* relevant?

Because in practice most people don't want to view the source in a 
browser.  They use DAV for working with their source, and they only 
use it for working with their source.

>>  representation you receive is a matter of server policy.  And some
>>  way of identifying that the server is talking to a DAV client would
>>  help with managing that policy.
>No, "DAV-Enabled" vs. "Translate" is the completely wrong approach.
>Following your proposal, a "DAV enabled" client never would want to GET the
>output resource.

Sure you could.  If the administrator decides that's a good thing, 
and wants to separate the URIs for source and display, then you could 
certainly GET the output resource with your DAV client.  And if 
DAV:source ever gets fixed and implemented then you could even have 
automatic linking between display and source  URIs.  Its all about 
how the administrator wants to set up the policy.


Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 18:39:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:25 UTC