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

Re: WebDAV resources must be in collections? (CONSISTENCY)

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:19:22 +0200
Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <1F6C98EA-F968-11D7-94B3-00039384827E@greenbytes.de>

A quick scan of 2518 revealed that the "consistent namespace"  
definition is
used with COPY/MOVE/DELETE to define restrictions on the outcome of the
operation. E.g. that the copied/moved/deleted resource created a  
namespace, especially in case of collections.

I think that definition and the restrictions on COPY/MOVE/DELETE are  
and, in particular, do allow single WebDAV resources on a server  
without an
embedding, WebDAV-enabled collection.

Regards, Stefan

Am Mittwoch, 08.10.03, um 09:51 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Julian  

> Lisa,
> what you are talking about is the consistency *definition*. Of course  
> it's possible to have WebDAV-compliant resources in non-consistent  
> namespaces.
> What we'll have to look fot is where the term is *used*. If it isn't,  
> the definition can go. However, I think we need it to define the  
> behaviour of namespace operations such as MOVE?
> 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 Lisa Dusseault
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:46 AM
>> To: 'Webdav WG'
>> Subject: WebDAV resources must be in collections? (CONSISTENCY)
>> This is the CONSISTENCY issue in
>> http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm.
>> RFC2518 says:
>> "  An HTTP URL namespace is said to be consistent if it meets the
>>    following conditions: for every URL in the HTTP hierarchy there
>>    exists a collection that contains that URL as an internal member.
>>    The root, or top-level collection of the namespace under
>>    consideration is exempt from the previous rule."
>> Roy Fielding -
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1998OctDec/ 
>> 0155.html:
>> "There is no need for that requirement and it
>> is the root of many terminology issues.  Any individual resource is
>> capable of being or not being DAVable, as determined by either the
>> capabilities described by an OPTIONS response"
>> I've been thinking of a use case for WebDAV resources that may not
>> be in WebDAV-capable collections.  The SIMPLE WG has discussed
>> making Buddy lists be (in one model) a WebDAV resource.  This would
>> mean that the buddy list could be locked, unlocked, could support
>> PROPFIND and PROPPATCH, could support the basic WebDAV properties
>> to know when the content changed and what the ETag is.  It could
>> have an owner and support the ACL method and the acl property.
>> Should we remove this consistency requirement from RFC2518bis?
>> Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 04:20:33 UTC

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