W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: AW: DAV:principal-URL

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:20:45 +0200
Message-ID: <4836EEDD.2080609@gmx.de>
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
CC: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, acl@webdav.org, Konstantin Breu <Konstantin.Breu@gmx.net>, 'WebDAV' <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> 
> Hi Julian,
> 
> --On May 23, 2008 1:10:41 PM +0200 Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> DAV:current-user-principal-resource (*) would show expose the mailto URI.
> 
>> (*) Shouldn't that be "DAV:current-user-principal-URL", by the way?
> 
> Actually this is the key point. The use case for clients is to get to 
> the principal "resource" not get the principal "URI". The interesting 
> properties that clients need are on the principal resource 
> (CALDAV:calendar-home-set for example), and indeed the DAV:principal-URL 
> property is also there. So from a principal resource you can directly 
> get DAV:principal-URL - always. From a principal-URL value, you are not 
> guaranteed to directly get the principal resource (e.g. if mailto: or 
> ldap: is used). If principal-URL does not point to a principal resource 
> then the client has to fall back to principal-property-search reports on 
> all valid principal collections in order to search for a principal 
> resource with that principal-URL. Clients shouldn't have to do that.

Yes.

I was just pointing out that we usually say "URL" in the XML elements 
when we're talking about URLs.

> Now, WebDAV ACL makes it clear (first paragraph of Section 2) that one 
> of DAV:principal-URL or DAV:alternate-URI-set MUST contain a URL to a 
> principal resource (http/https). So DAV:current-user-principal-resource 
> is just that value. DAV:principal-URL can therefore be any URI scheme 
> without affecting that.

OK, so the proposal for DAV:current-user-principal-URL^H^H^Hresource 
would work independently of the other issue, right?

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 16:25:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:16 GMT