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

RE: [Bug 70] New: REBIND arguments are like BIND

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 20:47:23 -0500
To: <ejw@cs.ucsc.edu>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF583D85E0.911864C4-ON85256F66.0009BBAE-85256F66.0009D4F8@us.ibm.com>
I think the consistency of REBIND with BIND is more important
than the consistency with MOVE.

Cheers,
Geoff


Jim wrote on 12/09/2004 07:03:02 PM:

> 
> Geoff Clemm writes:
> 
> > The REBIND method was intended to have syntax that paralleled 
> > BIND.  This means that the request-URL is the collection into 
> > which the binding is being created, the segment in the body 
> > is the new binding name in the request-URL collection, and 
> > the href in the body is the "source", i.e. the resource that 
> > is being rebound. 
> > 
> > The recent edits in this section (intended to address Jim's 
> > observation that the meaning of arguments of the method were 
> > not underspecified) were incorrect and broke this.  In 
> > particular, the introductory sentences of REBIND should be 
> > modeled after BIND, and the precondition names (which were 
> > originally correct) should be restored.
> 
> Do we care that the parameters are now switched as compared to those of
> MOVE?
> 
>            Source            Destination
> 
> MOVE     Request-URI         Destination header
> 
> REBIND   href XML elem     Request-URI plus segment 
>                              XML elem 
> 
> 
> I think it doesn't matter, but thought I should raise it.
> 
> - Jim
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 10 December 2004 01:47:58 UTC

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