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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:27:52 +0100
To: "CJ Holmes" <cholmes@4d.com>, "DAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEELGECAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of CJ Holmes
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:15 PM
> To: DAV
> Subject: RE: DAV-Enabled field (was RE: A case for GETSRC)
> ..
> Using DAV:source isn't an answer because:
> 	(1) everyone who advocates it agrees that DAV:source as
> specified now is insufficient.

OK, let's fix it.

> 	(2) In a general-purpose web server there is a very real
> messiness with trying to get the right DAV:source property onto all
> of the dynamically generated resources.  A web server may have dozens
> of modules that dynamically generate content, all of which might have
> very different definitions the URI spaces that they handle.

It's not clear to me why in this scenario using the same URI would be

> 	(3) I think client support for DAV:source (once the spec is
> fixed) will be a long time in coming because it will take time to
> understand the issues.

That we'll have to see.

> 	(4) You don't get anything extra with DAV:source beyond what
> you could have with Translate.  (Until DASL and friends make the
> scene, that is.)

I disagree. For instance, you get separate identifiers for separate things,
conform to HTTP, do not invent new methods, don't break proxies (...to be

The remark about DASL is interesting. Could you elaborate?
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 15:28:39 UTC

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