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

Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:45:29 -0800
Message-Id: <0BEA366E-4AE4-11D9-AC43-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: ejw@cs.ucsc.edu, "'webdav'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

What about a live property called "nextPhoto" on a WebDAV collection of 
photos?  Then it's trivial to do a "slideshow" for that collection, 
going from one photo to the next.  You can support one photo that 
appears in multiple slideshows through bindings, and the value for 
"nextPhoto" depends on which slide show the client is looking at, which 
is clearly detectable from the URL.

This kind of thing could be useful for other applications as well.  It 
could even work with PROPPATCH, because the server knows to treat this 
as a "per-binding" property and change only the value that applies for 
this binding.

I can even imagine a generic way of the client telling the server to 
"create me this new dead property as a per-binding property" so that 
the client can provide a new value per binding.

Lisa

On Dec 10, 2004, at 10:28 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Jim Whitehead wrote:
>> ...
> >
>> There's nothing in 2518 that implies a live property's computation 
>> depends
>> only on the state of the resource. It would be prefectly valid to 
>> have a
>> live property that returned a random number.
>
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.4.1>:
>
> "Properties are pieces of data that describe the state of a resource. 
> Properties are data about data."
>
> Also note that aforementioned live property wouldn't *vary* by 
> binding; it would just be random. What I'm looking for is a use-case 
> where properties varying by *binding* really make sense. So far, I'm 
> not aware of any case where this wouldn't be better modelled as a 
> property on the collection holding the binding.
>
>> I'm not too worried about encouraging binding-specific properties, as 
>> I
>> believe implementors would be able to see the potential usability 
>> drawbacks
>> of such properties.
>
> I tend to disagree here (judging from previous reactions) :-)
>
> Julian
>
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
Received on Friday, 10 December 2004 19:45:53 UTC

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