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: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:07:07 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8B011@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: DAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
It sounds like we have come to an agreement on the benefits of
having a separate URL, and on the benefits of having additional
methods/headers that allow you to use the same URL.

The problem with defining/allowing both techniques, is that some
servers will end up only doing one or the other, and some clients
will end up only doing one or the other.  That means clients
will only interoperate in this regard wrt to servers that do it
"the same way".  And for clients/servers that care about interoperation,
they have to do both, adding to the complexity of those interoperable
clients/servers (and interoperable clients/servers are the ones we
want to encourage/support).

This is a tradeoff decision where reasonable people can disagree,
but for me, the cost to interoperability of "allowing both" outweighs
the benefits of having a "simpler" alternative way of achieving the
same effect of DAV:source.


-----Original Message-----
From: CJ Holmes [mailto:cholmes@4d.com]

DASL makes things more interesting because it allows for searching on 
properties.  You might have content with properties that need to be 
searchable, generated by sources with a very different set of 
properties.  (eg: a single source document that generates several 
display documents with searchable properties of different values.) 
Since in this case you _want_ different properties between 
source/display views you get a real benefit from splitting them into 
separate resources with separate URIs.

I confess to not having read the spec, but it sounds like ACL is 
interesting because you could allow the NaturalSciences department 
(as an example) to restrict GET, HEAD, and POST operations in some 
display spaces and assign authoring/editing rights internally in some 
other spaces.  In short, it might allow  for a very author-driven 
security system instead of an administrator-driven one (without 
resorting to editing .htaccess files).  Still, if you had a way to 
differentiate between GET and GETSOURCE, you wouldn't necessarily 
benefit from splitting the source/display resource, but it still 
might be very convenient to do so.

This is why I keep coming back to the desireability of DAV:source. 
It should be fixed, and its support encouraged.  But there also needs 
to be room for people who prefer the simplicity of the single URI, 
who just use DAV for messing with source, and who don't benefit from 
differentiating source/display URIs.


Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 17:07:39 UTC

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