- From: Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@opentext.ch>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:35:37 +0100
- To: "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>, "w3c-dist-auth@w3.org" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
[Dylan Barrell] Comments Below -----Original Message----- From: Judith Slein [SMTP:slein@wrc.xerox.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 11:00 PM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Comments on 06 spec 3. Semantics of external members There are several points in the specification where I think the semantics of external collection members is mistaken. I think that the reason for all of the anomalies is that you have decided to implement external members as a property of the collection resource. This implementation choice does not force us to have the mistaken semantics, but it makes it more difficult to get the semantics right. I would argue that the semantics should drive the implementation (and in fact we don't have to tell servers how to implement external members at all). So here are the problems: Getting a listing of the members of a collection should result in a list that includes both internal and external members, but according to 7.1 the list will include internal members only. A Depth = 0 COPY operation should not copy any members, internal or external. The new collection should not have any members. But according to section 7.10.3, the new collection will have external members copied from the old collection. The Depth header should define the behavior of a method for both internal and external children, but according to 8.3 it affects only the behavior for internal children. [Dylan Barrell] I Agree absolutely with Judith. The external memebers should not differ from internal members in anything other than a property defining whether they are external or internal. The content of the external member should then simply be the URI to the external reference. This would result in a much cleaner implementation. Cheers Dylan
Received on Friday, 23 January 1998 04:33:33 UTC