- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:28:54 -0800
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, WEBDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> There is no requirement that DAV enabled resources be in a DAV collection. > Section 5.1 of 09 specifically states that DAV does not require the > namespace to be consistent. Thus you can have DAV resources which do not > necessarily have a DAV parent. The only rule is that if you do have a DAV > resource and if it does have a parent (a term defined in spec) and that > parent is DAV compliant then that parent MUST be a collection. > Right. But this is exactly the behavior that Roy was concerned with. Do you think WebDAV needs to require this constraint? - Jim > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 2:54 PM > To: ejw@ics.uci.edu > Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: Clarification of URI vs. resource > > > >Roy Fielding agreed: > >> I'll agree with Larry here -- I've been staying out of the debate > >> largely because I don't understand the need for the requirement at all. > > > >The only problem is that I don't understand what constraint > they're talking > >about! Is this a discussion of case sensitivity, or namespace > consistency? > > My comment was regarding the requirement that DAV capable resources be > within a DAV collection. There is no need for that requirement and it > is the root of many terminology issues. Any individual resource is > capable of being or not being DAVable, as determined by either the > capabilities described by an OPTIONS response or by the error response > received when attempting to do a WebDAV operation on a non-DAV resource. > "Save as..." dialogs are cool, but not necessary, for authoring. > > Eliminating the unnecessary requirement also removes any need to talk > about how many different URI reference the same resource, or what > might be the canonical preferred URI for a given resource. It just > doesn't matter if the definition is based on the request semantics > instead of a paricular idealized model of the URI namespace. > Instead, just define what a collection contains (its own namespace) > and how to get a representation of that collection. > > This was also the meat of the primary (aside from locking) objection > raised in Mark Anderson's critique of section 5 within > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1998OctDec/0099.html>. > In fact, I'd recommend replacing much of the existing section 5 with > the text he articulated, or at least merge it in so that it is clear > what motivates the discussion and explain why the "source resource" > reference is actually the most significant bit that DAV adds to HTTP. > Because it is, and I'm getting a tired of explaining what a server is > supposed to do when a client tries to PUT to a derived resource. > > ....Roy >
Received on Thursday, 12 November 1998 20:39:26 UTC