- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:47:35 -0400
- To: Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Dan,
I've written a long answer to your posting, but I think I'll just send a
short one.
I tend to agree with Lisa. The way we've specified it now seems like the
best we're
going to do right now. COPY creates a new resource that is modeled on the
source on
a "best effort' basis whereas MOVE simply changes the URL at which
we access a resource. And we've chosen to suggest that COPY (by default)
just do the equivalent of of GET/PUT prop FIND/PATCH.
I do see value in what you say at the end of your note. There might be
value in
a COPY'ing server to state how it treated the liveness of properties it
just copied.
Similarly it might be nice for a client to be able to point to a resource
and ask a server what liveness constraints it's trying to maintain on
various
properties. But didn't we just remove the keep-alive feature? Apparently
this
wasn't used. So I'm hesitant to spend time working on liveness management
features right now. Maybe later. I don't think what we're currently
proposing
closes the door on this.
J.
------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 19:55:49 UTC