- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:15:27 -0800
- To: "'Kenji Takahashi'" <kt@nttlabs.com>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
1. You need a PUT for every resource you create, HTML or not. Attributes are resources, so every attribute you create will require a PUT. HTTP Attributes have nothing what so ever to do with HTML. 2. It is not acceptable to have to download every single attribute every time I do a GET. The overhead is huge. As for abusing the term header, fine, call them attributes. Drop the word header. An attribute is nothing more than a typed link. The semantics of this link is that when a resource with attribute linked resources is manipulated the associated resources are also effected. As for manipulating the name space, this is a trade off. Performing two gets every time I want to get an attribute, once to get the URI of the attribute and again to retrieve the attribute, is not acceptable. Its too big a performance hit. Thus we must have a means to refer to an attribute without two lookups. The URL kludge is a legitimate way to do that. Though I suspect we will change the semantics to use ? rather than the "<"...">" syntax. 3. There are no references in the document to HTML. HTML has nothing to do with the document. Yaron >-----Original Message----- >From: Kenji Takahashi [SMTP:kt@nttlabs.com] >Sent: Monday, November 11, 1996 9:19 PM >To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org >Cc: kt@nttlabs.com >Subject: non-HTML resources in webdav spec > >Yaron (or anyone), > >I think I am coufused but... >Do we need two PUTs to create a new non-HTML resource: >one for attributes headers of the resource and the other for >the content of the resource? > >Or the WEBDAV draft excludes non-HTML resources (although it >does not explcitly say so)? > >To handle non-HTML resources properly, I think it would be >better to transmit meta-information (including attributes) >as HTTP headers. Because you can create a resource with one >PUT. The draft says in 2.2.1, "attributes headers may grow to >very large sizes and may contain octet data", but >I don't understand why we shoudn't send very large headers or >if octet data are really needed? Also sending HTTP headers in >the body of the entities is obviously misuse by definition. >I think clearly defined methods, such as a method for set attribute >values, are better thatn the misuse of (or confusing usage of) >existing methods... Also the draft proposes significant >additions to URI. I think URI should be opaque as discussed in >the early time in this maling list (remember the "URL;ver=" >discussion?). > >Actually the draft confuses me - I don't quite understand whether it >describes about HTTP headers or HTML head parts. > >Best regards, > >Kenji >
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 1996 20:15:29 UTC