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

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

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:33:47 -0800
To: "'Jason Crawford'" <nn683849@smallcue.com>
Cc: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <067301c2e5a1$41d4b6b0$bb01a8c0@xythoslap>

> On Friday, 03/07/2003 at 01:30 PST, "Lisa Dusseault"
> <nnlisa___at___xythos.com@smallcue.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyway, the main issue for us is that we absolutely can not
> > > change the
> > > > DELETE collection semantics (from what we have in RFC2518).
> > >
> > > Sure you can.  The behavior the spec outlines is 
> compliant with 2518.
> > > It does not break 2518 compliant clients.  But it does 
> require that
> > > server writers do some coding before they can claim to support
> > > this new feature.
> > >
> >
> > Well, yes, one can change the required behavior from 2518 
> to 2518bis.
> > However, we don't want to do that unless there are existing
> > interoperability problems.  I don't think changing the model so that
> > some servers have difficulty being compliant with the new model is a
> > good idea for 2518bis.
> 
> They'd still be compliant.  SHOULD is not MUST
> 

I don't think we're talking about the same thing any more. Perhaps too
much context was deleted.  I was talking about what I thought was a
suggestion to use "MUST" with respect to DELETE being atomic in 2518bis.

Lisa
Received on Saturday, 8 March 2003 13:33:53 GMT

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