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

Re: Comments on bind-08

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:58:55 -0500
To: "WebDAV (WebDAV WG)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF18526917.D8283D75-ON85256F5C.0050E573-85256F5C.00524C3F@us.ibm.com>
Julian wrote on 11/30/2004 08:10:02 AM:

> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

> >  > > * Section 2.6, final paragraph, last two sentences. Change "must 
not" to
> >  > > "MUST NOT" (and eliminate the "For example" at the start of the 
sentence --
> >  > > perhaps change to "Specifically,"

> > I'd vote to take Jim's suggested changes here.  A UUID that is not 
> > preserved
> > by the MOVE implementation for a repository should not be a candidate 
for a
> > DAV:resource-id implementation.

> I disagree here. We spent a lot of time discussing whether we can change 

> the semantics for MOVE, and in the end we agreed to leave MOVE alone and 

> to add REBIND. Section 2.5 specifies that a server MAY implement MOVE as 

> REBIND (atomic), but that it doesn't have to. We should leave it at 
that.

I wasn't suggesting that we change the semantics for MOVE (and I agree 
that
we cannot do so).  What we can do is define the semantics for 
DAV:resource-id,
since that is a new property that is being introduced by this spec.  So
what I was suggesting was that we state that a server cannot implement
DAV:resource-id in a way that it is modified during a MOVE operation. This
just means that a server cannot use some existing custom property to 
implement
DAV:resource-id if that custom property is not preserved during a MOVE.

Cheers,
Geoff

 
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2004 14:59:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC