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

RE: COPY and bindings

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:09:40 -0700
To: "Nevermann, Dr., Peter" <Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Excellent question. I'd say that the current language in bind-02 doesn't
sufficiently cover this case, and we should clarify it.

Another possible outcome for your scenario is that you get zero additional
copies of R, that only C is duplicated, but all its bindings stay the same.
I don't think these are the semantics we want (i.e., I'm not advocating
them), but they are another possible reading of the current specification
(and hence another reason why we need to clarify the semantics of copy for
depth infinity).

I have a slight leaning towards preserving the bind structure of the source
at the destination, and hence in your scenario I'd choose:

   / \
 C1' C2'
   \ /

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Nevermann, Dr., Peter
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:14 AM
To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'
Subject: COPY and bindings

Suppose the following:
- a resource R
- a collection C1 with a binding x to R
- a collection C2 with a binding y to R
- a collection C mapped to URI-1 containing C1 and C2
   / \
  C1 C2
   \ /
Now I issue a COPY on URI-1 with destination URI-2 and depth infinity.
How many copies do I get for R, one or two?
   / \
 C1' C2'
   \ /
   / \
 C1' C2'
  |   |
  R'  R"
I suspect that 2 copies is correct ... or at least, the server is allowed to
duplicate R at destination.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 12:26:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:28 UTC