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

I'm OK with this. Implementors tend to do the "right" thing wrt consistency when it matters, and the current language has caused confusion far beyond its worth.

- Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:46 PM
> 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 12:06:50 UTC