- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:02:52 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Well, I certainly read it wrong although I read it carefully, because I forgot that REBIND is defined differently than MOVE so that the Request-URI is the target collection. And it's not obvious to me that the source collection doesn't need to implement REBIND for this to work. But if everybody else who reads the spec is clear on this, then I'll write it off as an anomaly. Lisa On Jun 23, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: > >> Because the sentence talked only about one collection supporting >> REBIND, and I would think that the most important collection to >> support REBIND in this case would be the source collection. I think >> that was a reasonable and careful read of the text. > > Well, no: > > "If the destination collection of a MOVE request supports the REBIND > method (see Section 6), a MOVE of a resource into that collection MAY > be implemented as a REBIND request." > > The text clearly talks about the destination collection, and as far as > I can tell, it's doing that on purpose. > >> Perhaps my assumption would not have held up if the sentence had said >> "if the destination collection and the source resource of a MOVE >> request both support the REBIND method ..." etc. > > The source resource doesn't need to support REBIND - REBIND is a > method where the Request-URI is the target collection into which the > new binding is added. > > Best regards, Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 17:03:27 UTC