- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:25:57 -0800
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "'Wallmer, Martin'" <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>, "'Kevin Wiggen'" <kwiggen@xythos.com>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
> 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? > I did read it all, and I didn't mean to change the meaning by cutting. I feel this question stands on its own and is an important question meriting careful thought. The ACL question for a property may elucidate the "meaning" of it, but so does MOVE. Case 1. If "hiddenness" is a property of a resource, then a) you need write permission on the resource to change the is-hidden property b) the property value stays with the resource when it is moved or renamed c) the resource is hidden in every collection to which it is bound, because bindings merely expose the properties of their resources. Case 2. If "hiddenness" is a property of a collection's membership data, then a) you need write permission on the *collection* in order to change the value. b) When you MOVE or rename a resource it would no longer be hidden because that was a property of its source membership. c) one binding of a resource may be visible, and another hidden. Case 3. If "hiddenness" is a property of a binding, then a) you need write permission on ?? to change it b) When you MOVE/rename a binding, its hidden value would go along with it c) One binding of a resource may be visible and another hidden For MOVE and rename functionality, and the flexibility of one binding being hidden and another not, I prefer Case 3. However I agree the ACL issue is problematic and unless we come up with a general way to deal with it we might prefer Case 1 despite the fact that it has less flexibility. I do not prefer case 2 because I wouldn't expect a rename of a resource, or a MOVE to another collection, to "unhide" it. Yet that's the natural implementation if hiddenness is a property of the collection's membership list. If hiddenness is a property of the collections membership list but it *does* go along in a MOVE, then we have somewhat of a hybrid model, IMO. Or if moving to another collection behaves differently than a rename, we may have a problem with MOVE. Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 11:26:20 UTC