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

RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:15:01 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEPHFJAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:42 PM
> To: 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253
>
>
> I agree with Stefan's proposal.
> The key semantics that we wanted to maintain is that "if the
> resource exists, it exists at the original URL".  Stefan's

Do we agree that *the* key semantics is that a URL that has been assigned to
a version or a VHR never is assigned to anything else?

In which case I don't understand why the special MOVE semantics (that we're
causing me to start this thread) are relevant. Why don't we gust get rid of
them?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 11:15:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT