W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Properties of bindings (was Re: Issues remaining with Bind draft)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:10:35 +0200
Message-ID: <40691D6B.3030601@gmx.de>
To: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Cc: nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3.org@smallcue.com

Jason Crawford wrote:

>  > The "hidden" flag you suggest would also be interesting as a
>  > binding  property, as was suggested in this Internet-Draft
>  > (also implemented in  Microsoft servers):
>  > http://www.ics.uci.edu/~ejw/authoring/props/draft-hopmann-
>  > collection-props-00.txt
> Although I'm not sure if hidden is a good example, I don't have a 
> problem with some hypothetical property returning a different value 
> depending on which URL you use to reference it.  In fact I wouldn't be 
> surprised if we eventually intentionally define a property that does 
> vary by URL.  But we should be clear right now that all properties that 
> are resource based (which is basically everything at the time of the 
> writing) should not vary by URL and that future properties should not 
> vary by URL without a documented reason.

Well, I think that properties SHOULD NOT vary on request URI (nor should 
the content), as this is clearly against the goals of the BIND spec. 
RFC2518 says that PROPFIND returns the resource's properties, and BIND 
speaks about having multiple URIs for the same resource. I think this is 
clear enough...

If you need responses that vary with the request URI, you're IMHO not 
talking to the *same* resource anymore.

Regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 02:36:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:29 UTC