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

Re: remaining redirect ref issues

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:53:32 -0800
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9518EDF7.49E1F092-ON88256DE3.000EA437-88256DE3.000FE470@us.ibm.com>
In principle, I agree with Roy on this issue.

But a problem with the "authoring URI" approach occurs when you want to
apply a Depth operation (e.g. PROPFIND).  You can get all the authoring
URIs with a single Depth PROPFIND, but then how do you avoid having to
apply the operation separately to each of the authoring URIs?

In the case of PROPFIND, there is a solution provided by RFC-3253
(the DAV:expand-property REPORT), but that only works for PROPFIND,
not for other Depth methods like COPY.

Cheers,
Geoff 

Roy wrote on 11/12/2003 01:08:34 PM:

> I am certain I have said this before, though it was several years ago.
> The RESOURCE IS NOT A STORAGE ITEM ON THE SERVER!  Failure to get 
> straight
> on that one bit is what causes webdav to trip over HTTP whenever it
> tries to "author" anything other than a boring old file.
> 
> In this case, there must be two different URIs -- one for the resource
> and one for the configuration of that resource.  That configuration
> may be as simple as a URI, maybe a status code and a URI, or maybe even
> an XML document -- that is what must be defined by the redirect 
> protocol.
> The actual URI which responds to requests with a redirect should have a
> link to its configuration URI, such that an authoring tool can discover
> the authorable resource that causes this resource to redirect.  That is
> why webdav requires a source link in order to perform HTTP authoring.
> 
> The same principle holds for all dynamic content.
> 
> ....Roy
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 21:53:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT