- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:06:48 +0100
- 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: > Julian, you keep begging the question. You effectively argue > that putting properties on bindings is wrong because it's wrong. Nope. Actually it's good to move the property to the binding, if it is specific to the binding. However in this case it clearly should be modelled where the state of the binding is kept, and this is currently the containing collection, *not* the resource itself. > You can't assume that something is wrong in order to argue that > it's wrong. I'm asking you to consider whether our specifications > would be better or worse if it *weren't* wrong. I don't. >>>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). > > > Calling it a 'hack' assumes that we agree on the architectural > principle. I'm questioning the proposed architectural principle. > Do you have another argument besides calling it a hack? How about reading all of my email instead of cutting an important line? Here it is: Q: to hide a directory entry, do you need write privileges on the collection the binding is in, or on the resource itself? Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 20:07:38 UTC