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

Re: DAV:bindings-last-modified (was RE: DAV:getlastmodified of collections)

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:02:14 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Message-ID: <OFCB70AE58.A8C51C89-ON85256D9D.000A2FD6-85256D9D.000B30F7@us.ibm.com>
If one were to add language of the kind you describe below, I'd emphasize
that this is just implied by the definition of the Last-Modified header,
and not some new semantics defined for collections.


Chris Knight <Christopher.D.Knight@nasa.gov> wrote on 09/09/2003 06:36:33 

> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> >I believe that we have concluded that DAV:getlastmodified depends on
> >what the server returns on a GET on a collection, and therefore is not
> >something we can define (since what the server returns on a GET on a
> >collection is not defined).
> >
> Actually, since many servers do implement GET on a collection, how about 

> saying "DAV:getlastmodified should be defined for collections if the 
> server supports GET on collections and the value of the property would 
> be the last time some operation changed what would be the result of a 
> GET operation (and would be the value that would be compared against if 
> a Last-Modified header was sent on said GET request)"?
> Sorry, my brain is not thinking in protocol-spec-speak right now, but I 
> think you get the idea.
> Your other property for bindings would be useful as well, and I would 
> guess that many implementations would make them equivalent (as a GET on 
> a collection would return an HTML rendering of the bindings from that 
> collection.)
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 22:02:19 UTC

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