W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Support for non-DAV collections

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:19:47 -0700
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <op.stn8i9sseochem@lisa.local>

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:40:35 -0700, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:

>
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> It depends on whether we're going for Draft Standard or not -- and it  
>> was  my understanding that Ted is keeping the WG open so we can bring  
>> WebDAV to  Draft Standard.  To go to Draft Standard, we need to take a  
>> Proposed  Standard and remove the options that aren't implemented,  
>> interoperable and  tested 2x2.
>
> Yes. Every server that supports collections as WebDAV compliant  
> resources already supports this feature. And every client that issues a  
> PROPFIND without using other WebDAV methods already uses it. I'm not  
> sure what kind of additional test you're looking for.

That's not how I read it.  I understood that paragraph as saying that a  
server could call something a collection (using the resourcetype property)  
but have it be non-WebDAV-compliant resources.  In fact "not be WebDAV  
compliant" is in the first sentence.  So that's why I asked if anybody had  
implemented non-WebDAV-compliant resources that still had the  
DAV:collection element in the DAV:resourcetype property.  I can imagine  
how one might use this -- for example, it might show up in its parent as a  
collection yet not itself support direct PROPFIND requests -- but I am  
unaware of any implementations.

>
>> Another option that isn't broadly implemented, if at all, is the  
>> support  for locks that aren't write locks or aren't exclusive locks  
>> (since only  exclusive write locks are fully defined).  Are there any  
>> implementations  at all that do locks that aren't write locks?  Didn't  
>> Adobe or somebody  implement shared locks?
>
> Me confused.
>
> The only type of locks defined in RFC2518 are write locks. Write locks  
> can be shared or exclusive, and there are both servers implementing this  
> and clients using it. Looking at  
> <http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm>, issue #96, the WG has  
> discussed this over three years ago and concluced that they are indeed  
> implemented.
>
I also figured that shared locks were implemented already although I'm not  
sure they satisfy the 2x2 test requirement.  But what about non-write  
locks?  Has anybody implemented locks that aren't write locks and don't  
advertise themselves as such?

The way this impacts the document is that sections 6 and 7 could be merged  
if there are effectively only write locks.  Section 6 discusses locks,  
section 7 discusses specifically write locks.

Lisa
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2005 00:20:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:09 GMT