RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)

Geoff,

I think we should get back to this issue once we do agree whether or not the
problem you mentioned really exists (see separate thread).

Julian
--
<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: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:34 AM
> To: 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)
>
>
>
> I still vote for "SHOULD".  In particular, given the problems
> partial DELETE and partial MOVE can produce in a multiple binding
> context, a server that supports multiple bindings to a resource
> SHOULD do those operations atomically unless it
> has a very good reason to do otherwise (e.g. the scenario I
> posted earlier).
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:38 PM
> To: Brian Korver; 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)
>
>
>
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian Korver
> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:15 PM
> > To: 'WebDAV'
> > Subject: Re: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Geoff,
> >
> > My reading of the consensus was that the atomic behavior should
> > be a "MAY", not a "SHOULD" as you suggest, but I don't have religion
> > on the issue.
>
> I think Brian is right here. SHOULD is really strong in
> RFC-speak, and if we
> really expect servers to show this behaviour, ir probably needs to be
> specified as "MAY".
>
> Julian
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>

Received on Saturday, 8 March 2003 02:42:22 UTC