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

Re: BIND and cross-server binds

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:47:05 +0100
Message-ID: <47E16DB9.9020404@gmx.de>
To: Mike Douglass <douglm@rpi.edu>
CC: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Mike Douglass wrote:
> Rather late to the list I'm afraid...
> Cyrus pointed out this draft to me in relation to some issues with 
> CalDAV and it seemed it would offer a solution to some practical 
> difficulties we ran into with the use of CalDAV - how do we make users 
> subscriptions appear in a CalDAV client.
> The solution I was looking at was essentially some form of alias scheme 
> which would allow us to implant an alias to a resource in the users 
> calendar hierarchy. This works for shred calendars on the same system 
> and will work fine for shared calendars on any other system except that 
> it's unlikely they are going to tell us that the resource has been 
> deleted - nor do they care there is a link to that resource e.g. google.
> Given that the server can behave perfectly reasonably in the event that 
> a targetted resource has gone missing why was it felt necessary to 
> require that the targetted server a) know about all such bindings and b) 
> inform the targetting servers?

Well, for BIND we assumed people want referential integrity.

Maybe you should look at redirect reference resources? 

> And if I implement BIND such that it simply treats the target as empty 
> or non-existant how would anybody know different? By which I mean 
> wouldn't it be better to define the response if a targetted resource 
> disappears or becomes unavailable? The conditions as laid out in draft 
> 20 seem to make this feature unusable for many purposes

I'm not entirely sure what you mean... Could you provide an example?

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 19:47:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:37 UTC