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: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:06:31 +0100
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEDKFLAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253On the other hand, doing that
would make the question about response codes moot.

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
  Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:57 PM
  To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
  Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253


     From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]

     > From: Clemm, Geoff
     > A COPY would have to check for any
     > resource that has multiple entries in its DAV:parent-set, to see if
it
     > has already been copied (in which case a second binding to the copy
is
     > created).

     This COPY behaviour makes sense, but can we really require it?
     Right now it seems completely legal to just create multiple plain
     new resources with same content and dead properties...

  If the binding relationships are acyclic, creating multiple
  plain new resources with the same content and dead properties
  seems reasonable to me (i.e. I don't think the spec should
  forbid it), but this would be a somewhat expensive approach if
  there are cycles (:-).

  Cheers,
  Geoff
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:07:05 GMT

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