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

Re: Comments on bind-08

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:17:15 +0100
Message-ID: <41ACB92B.3030108@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, "WebDAV (WebDAV WG)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> Jim: I'm OK with adding the paragraph, but what was the possible
>> misunderstanding
>> that this additional text was intended to clear up?  How else could a
>> Depth=infinity
>> COPY work?
> 
> 
> I agree with Jim that we should add clearer wording here.  The ingenuity of
> implementors is great, and that includes a surprising ability to come to
> different conclusions than the writers of a specification.

I'd still like to know how it is clearer...

>> I agree with Julian.  A version is a new resource created by the 
>> CHECKIN method.
>> According to section 2.6, a new resource must be assigned a new 
>> resource-id,
>> so each new version needs to be assigned a new, distinct resource-id.
> 
> 
> Great -- so we agree on what should happen.  As Jim suggests,
> let's put it in the spec.

Again, before we put additional spec into the spec, it should be clear 
what problem it solves. I understand that you lean to "more is better", 
but please acknowledge that many people writing specs disagree.

>>>> * Section 6.2. I think it would be helpful to have an example including
>>>> REBIND and locks, showing submission of one or more lock tokens in 
>>>> the If
>>>> header.
>>>
>>>
>>> Such as one involving locked source and destination collections? That
>>> may be useful. What do others think?
>>
>>
>> I continue to believe that the right place for locking examples is in a
>> locking spec, and that the binding spec just needs to make clear which 
>> resources
>> and which URL mappings are being modified by an operation, since this 
>> is all
>> you need to know which locks are required.  I believe this information is
>> well-defined in the pre-conditions of the methods introduced by the 
>> binding
>> spec.  So I'd vote not to add such an example, but I could live with it,
>> if a majority is for it.
> 
> 
> An example with locks and REBIND would be great.  Other examples with locks
> and bound resources (and requirements about what URL must be used/supported
> in the requests) would also be great.

I'm not sure how locking examples for REBIND are going to help much. 
REBIND is just like MOVE, except for slightly different marshalling. I'm 
not against adding an example per se, but if we do it it should really 
contain something that's not available elsewhere.

Julian



-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:17:50 UTC

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