RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

It is also desireable that a client be able to use
the original URL as long as that resource exists.

Stefan's proposal ensures that is the case.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:15 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff; 'Webdav WG'
Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253


> 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