W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: SEARCH by last path segment, Was: SEARCH for displayname

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:21:02 +0100
Message-ID: <3FBA8D3E.6030407@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: "'Wallmer, Martin'" <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>, 'Kevin Wiggen' <kwiggen@xythos.com>, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> You say "property of the binding" because it's natural to think
> of bindings as having properties.  If that's so natural, then 
> there's a strong reason to let it happen.

...I was using "property" as english word, not referring to a DAV property.

If being hidden is a property of a binding, and a binding is part of the 
state of the collection, then it follows that the flag is part of the 
collection's state, right?

> If we defined a feature to hide bindings, you could set up binding 'foo' 
> to resource A as hidden, whereas binding 'bar' to resource A as 
> visible.  Then if you request 'ishidden' on 'foo'
> the server returns 'true', and 'ishidden' on 'bar' returns false.

And this is exactly what I want to avoid. If the property belongs to the 
parent collection, nothing is lost and we don't need a hack (a property 
that varies upon request URI).

Q: to hide a directory entry, do you need write privileges on the 
collection the binding is in, or on the resource itself?

> To do this in a more complicated manner requires justification 
> which I think we're approaching in a separate mail.

Regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:21:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:43 UTC