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

RE: Scope - only collections?

From: Wallmer, Martin <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:12:43 +0200
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E6210602D90336@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org

Hi,

what the depth means, if the URI is a collection, is already mentioned in
[102]. 
I think, it is sufficient, if in [101] is stated, that URI can point to any 
resource, and in [102]: If the URI is not a collection, the meaning is just
undefined
(as Jim suggested).

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Freitag, 5. Juli 2002 08:12
To: Jim Davis; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Scope - only collections?


> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Davis
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:01 PM
> To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Scope - only collections?
>
> ...
>
> >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.

Question: should we say what the depth means if the URI scheme is a
hierarchical one?
Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 03:12:49 GMT

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