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 18:57:19 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEPLFJAA.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 6:37 PM
> To: 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: 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.

But why? It *is* allowed to delete the resource, so there's no guarantee
that the version/VHR will be kept eternally. From a client's point of view,
it's completely irrelevant whether it's getting the 404 because the resource
was deleted or because it was moved.

> Stefan's proposal ensures that is the case.

Yes, but it makes the model more complicated with little benefit. Forbidding
a DELETE on a binding just because other bindings continue to exist seems to
contradict the intent of the BIND spec. Therefore I'd like to see better
reasons why we really need that. In doubt, we should *simplify* things, not
make them more complicated.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 12:57:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:26 UTC