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

RE: Scope - only collections?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:50:05 +0200
To: "Wallmer, Martin" <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Jim Davis" <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEHKEOAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Actually,

5.4.2 was already saying that the scope can be an arbitrary URI. So all I
did was removing the words "..for a collection...", so para 101 now says:

"DAV:href indicates the URI to use as a scope"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Wallmer, Martin
> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:13 AM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; Jim Davis; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Scope - only collections?
>
>
>
> 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 Monday, 8 July 2002 09:50:37 GMT

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