Re: Question:is vresourceid copied?
Yaron Goland (yarong@microsoft.com)
Wed, 19 May 1999 14:55:23 -0700
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D08793212@RED-MSG-59>
From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
To: "'Jim Davis'" <jdavis@coursenet.com>,
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:55:23 -0700
Subject: RE: Question:is vresourceid copied?
There is a special place in hell for me for every having defined a move as:
The MOVE operation on a non-collection resource is the
****logical****
equivalent of a copy (COPY), followed by consistency maintenance
processing, followed by a delete of the source, where all three
actions are performed atomically.
I take some comfort that Jim Whitehead will be frying right next to me
because he actually reviewed and even edited this language and still let it
through.
As I explain in tortuous, endless, excruciating detail in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999JanMar/0125.html a
MOVE is not, never has been and never will be a COPY + DELETE.
Sorry to get so emotional about this but I have had this language
misunderstood about a 1000 times. I admit, it is horribly written! I
apologize! That is why I wrote that long winded article explaining to the
last period and semi-colon how it got written and why people are misreading
it. I realize I still have many thousands of years of penance to do but I'm
trying my best to get started.
Yaron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@coursenet.com]
> Sent: Wed, May 19, 1999 10:08 AM
> To: Geoffrey M. Clemm; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Question:is vresourceid copied?
>
>
> At 04:26 AM 5/19/99 -0400, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
> >
> > From: "Jim Davis" <jdavis@coursenet.com>
> >
> > The draft (2.9) says that DAV:vresourceid must be
> preserved by a MOVE.
> > What about a COPY?
> >
> >A COPY creates a new resource, so the DAV:vresourceid would not be
> >preserved.
>
> But isn't MOVE a COPY + DELETE? If the COPY creates a new
> resource, how is
> DAV:vresourceid preserved?
>