- From: Eric Sedlar <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:46:56 -0700
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> I still don't see your objection to Julian's original proposal, > i.e. if your server can (or is willing to) allow a client to operate > directly on the resource identified by the DAV:resourceid, then it > just makes the value of DAV:resourceid be in the HTTP: namespace. > How does an interoperable client know that it can do this? Are you going to allow an optional <href> tag in DAV:resourceid so that the client can know to do this? This just puts the burden on the client writer. > There is value in a DAV:resourceid, even if it isn't something a > client can use to directly operate on the resource, so I don't believe > it is reasonable to require that the value of DAV:resourceid be in the HTTP > namespace. > What do you feel is unreasonable? Finding some obscure part of the HTTP namespace on a server to map to? Handling requests with resource-ids? It seems to me that this makes resourceid simpler for simple repositories that may not have GUIDs available, as they can just use the resource's URL if they don't allow multiple bindings to a resource. --Eric
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 21:03:50 UTC