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: 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>
Message-ID: <00fd01c3aeb9$d05bdd50$75c990c6@lisalap>

> 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
 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,
 a) you need write permission on the *collection* in order to change the
 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

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.

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 11:26:20 UTC

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