W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: Scope - only collections?

From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 13:00:42 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020704125926.01acd668@127.0.0.1>
To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org

At 08:21 AM 7/4/2002 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:

> > From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Wallmer, Martin
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 7:46 AM
> > To: 'www-webdav-dasl@w3.org'
> > Subject: Scope - only collections?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > chapter 5.4
> > (http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-late
> > st.html#rf
> > c.section.5.4) states:
> > 101 DAV:href indicates the URI for a collection to use as a scope
> > 102 When the scope is a collection, ...
> > [102] sounds, as if the scope could be anything else. Is this meant so? I
> > found a message of Jim Davis in the mailing archive
> > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webdav-dasl/1998JulSep/0021.html)
> > concerning any resource as scope. I would strongly prefer to use any
> > resource as scope.
>
>I personally can't see why a collection would be required, and our
>implementation doesn't require that. So I agree with Jim and yourself that
>this restriction should be lifted (I'll add that to the issues list for
>now).
>
>Jim originally proposed to allow any URI as scope. I think that could be
>done, although it would probably require some more work to get "depth"
>properly defined. Jim, do you think that would be worth the effort?

Seems to me that depth makes sense only if the URI is a WebDAV collection 
resource.  If the URI is not a collection, the meaning is just undefined.
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2002 16:04:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:09 GMT