W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: bind draft issues

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:45:20 +0100
To: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEAAGLAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stefan Eissing
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:34 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Clemm, Geoff; WebDAV
> Subject: Re: bind draft issues
>
> ...
>
> >> Hmm, I think I know what you mean, however there are cases
> >> where you might want this to break:
> >>
> >> 1) variants. /news/english/ and /news/german/ might be the same
> >>    resource with different content based on the "access" URL. All
> >>    get* properties will probably vary. (They can already vary on
> >>    a resource with a single binding)
> >
> > That would mean that entities may vary based on the request URI. Is
> > this the
> > case?
>
> I thought that's what I wrote.

OK, I rephrase it: that would mean that a resource is *allowed* to vary
based on the request URL. I don't think we all agree on that.

> >> 2) live props with URI References can report different relative uri
> >>    references. They are semantically equivalent, but the string value
> >>    of such a property will differ.
> >
> > For instance?
>
> ../../../../version-history/1/2/12
> for PROPFIND result on /a/b/c/d/vcr
> and
> ../../../version-history/1/2/12
> for PROPFIND result on /a/b/c/vcr
> with both "vcr" being bindings to the same resource.

OK, this means that we'll have to clarify the "sameness" of property values.
If a property value is a relative URI, it's to be resolved against the
request URL. If they resolve to the same absoluteURI, the property value is
the same.

RFC2518bis issue: the spec normatively refers to RFC2616's term "URI", but
RFC2616 does not formally define it. We need to rephrase this using the BNF
terms URIreference and absoluteURI.

> >> What exactly is it, you want to prevent to happen?
> >
> > People falling into the trap of believing in "URL properties", I guess.
>
> Probably a good guess of Geoff's intentions. Why not give a guess
> what an "URL property" exactly is? That would be most welcome.

Our (Geoff's any my) understanding is that there *are* no URL properties. A
URL property would be something that varies with the request URL (under the
relaxed "sameness" definition stated above).

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 04:46:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:03 GMT