I don't think so. Suppose that /a/b identified a resource R1. Also suppose that /c identified resource R1. If you rebind /a to /a/b, that will delete the binding named "b" to R1 in the collection named by "/a", so /c will still identify R1, not the folder that was identified by "/a", so there is no reason for /c/a to identify the collection (unless /c/a originally identified the collection, in which case it falls under the criteria of my message below, i.e. that there was another binding to /a). Cheers, Geoff Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 10/24/2006 12:28:19 PM: > Geoffrey M Clemm schrieb: > > > > My response was incomplete. In case the server does support binding > > loops, but /a was the only binding to the collection, so the REBIND > > effectively deletes the collection, then the server would fail the > > request with DAV:new-binding in the DAV:error status response message > > (since the collection does not contain the new binding, since it has > > been deleted). > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > Well. But if there's another binding to b, such as /c, all is fine, > right? "/a" would be gone, but would be accessible as "/c/a". > > Best regards, JulianReceived on Tuesday, 24 October 2006 16:40:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 October 2007 17:53:27 GMT